2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
That part about employees is certainly unenforceable. And ironically, given all the other legal trappings, there is no severability clause. That means the contract rises or falls as a whole. Maybe that's the out -- when you sign it, you're "agreeing" to something that you know a priori is unenforceable so the "agreement" is void ab initio.Quote: beachbumbabsApparently, too, the duration is for the rest of your life.
I'm hearing that the NDA is not only unconstitutional via First Amendment protections, it's unenforceable. And more than ironic, given Trump's stance on being able to say whatever nasty thing pops into his head, without apology or factual basis. Transparency, he claims. What a laugh. More third world dictator policies, more like.
Quote: MathExtremistThat part about employees is certainly unenforceable. And ironically, given all the other legal trappings, there is no severability clause. That means the contract rises or falls as a whole. Maybe that's the out -- when you sign it, you're "agreeing" to something that you know a priori is unenforceable so the "agreement" is void ab initio.
I wouldn't feel sorry for Trump's employees and their rights being violated any more than I would a Nazi death camp guard being forced to work unpaid overtime.
Trump (and conservatism in general) is fundamentally about depriving people of their rights, so anyone who signs up to be one of his flying monkeys shouldn't be surprised if that is done to them. Though it would be effin' HILARIOUS if Trump wound up suing one of his monkeys, er, staffers.
I haven't seen this before. Kind of has a lot of dirt and is sobering. Really might even deserve its own thread.
He made a fool out of himself on Twitter again.
Quote: realDonaldTrumpLyin' Hillary Clinton told the FBI that she did not know the "C" markings on documents stood for CLASSIFIED. How can this be happening?
(C) stands for Confidential, NOT Classified.
If you're gonna berate Hillary for not knowing something, maybe you should learn what the heck you're talking about!!
An unfit for pres. statement about another unfit for pres. statement.Quote: ams288Poor Donald.
He made a fool out of himself on Twitter again.
(C) stands for Confidential, NOT Classified.
If you're gonna berate Hillary for not knowing something, maybe you should learn what the heck you're talking about!!
Quote: MichaelBluejayIn my state (Texas) the Republican usually wins by a landslide, so I typically vote for a third-party candidate, like a Green. But there's a chance that the Texas race will be close this year, and if so, I plan on voting for Hillary. Which is a long way of saying, I didn't vote in the poll, because my answer isn't listed. ("Undecided")
For the first time in 75 years, Dallas Morning News endorses a Democrat POTUS candidate (in today’s information age, I don’t think newspaper endorsement matters).
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160907-we-recommend-hillary-clinton-for-president.ece
There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.
We don't... (removed by moderator per copyright rules and forum rules. Please continue to read via the link provided. Thanks.)
Hopefully all the righties who were desperately clamoring for one are satisfied.
What non-issue will they berate her for now? Back to Benghazi?
Quote: 777For the first time in 75 years, Dallas Morning News endorses a Democrat POTUS candidate (in today’s information age, I don’t think newspaper endorsement matters).
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160907-we-recommend-hillary-clinton-for-president.ece
There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.
We don't... (removed by moderator per copyright rules and forum rules. Please continue to read via the link provided. Thanks.)
I'm not all that surprised by this editorial appearing in Dallas; Texas is a big state, and there is a wide political spectrum there, even though it may seem sometimes like there isn't. If we looked at the newspapers in Cowpie or Gun Love, Texas, we'd see 100% Trump slobber in the op-ed pages (AND in the "news" coverage).
Of course, NO ONE should endorse Trump, but I do wonder, like you, whether endorsements matter that much these days. Particularly in this race. Trumpers seem to be flocking to him because he professes to hate some of the same people they do. I think that matters more than whether Congressman Winklefester endorses him or not.
Edit: I note with amusement that one of the two reasons the Dallas paper endorses Clinton is that so many Republicans appear to actually like her. What more critical criterion for governance is there than being approved of by Republicans???
Quote: ams288Hillary did a press conference this morning.
Hopefully all the righties who were desperately clamoring for one are satisfied.
What non-issue will they berate her for now? Back to Benghazi?
Her myriad of errors and shortcomings are non issues for you, but not the American public. I fully expect her to win as she is facing DT, but they are close enough in the polls now to at least worry her. I really enjoyed reading her Dallas newspaper "endorsement".
In summary, it said, "SHE SUCKS, BUT SUCKS A LOT LESS THAN HIM!"
Quote: SOOPOOIn summary, it said, "SHE SUCKS, BUT SUCKS A LOT LESS THAN HIM!"
I'd say that's the position of most voters this year.
I have so many solid Republican family members who just aren't going to vote for President this year. It's amazing.
Quote: SOOPOOHer myriad of errors and shortcomings are non issues for you, but not the American public. I fully expect her to win as she is facing DT, but they are close enough in the polls now to at least worry her. I really enjoyed reading her Dallas newspaper "endorsement".
In summary, it said, "SHE SUCKS, BUT SUCKS A LOT LESS THAN HIM!"
Actually, it doesn't really take that tone. It notes that she has the qualifications and experience that the Orange Orangutan lacks. It does say that she has some faults in judgment but that they pale in comparison to the OO's. What you term "her myriad of errors and shortcomings" are actually pretty trivial, and not a "myriad" at all (you might want to look up the word). And yes, I know that you think that her having sent emails is a capital crime. As a matter of fact, that IS a non-issue for 90% of the American public. The remainder are Trumpers and misogynists who are desperately seeking something to pin on Clinton as the OO circles the drain.
The hidden message is that Clinton will be better able to work with Republicans--who will probably continue to dominate American politics for the next several years--than Trump would. The paper notes that he is unstable, impulsive, and lacks good judgment. It leaves out the observation that he's also a massive jerk, which I do concede isn't necessarily a disqualifier for the Presidency.
Quote: ams288I'd say that's the position of most voters this year.
I have so many solid Republican family members who just aren't going to vote for President this year. It's amazing.
When the curtain closes on the voting booth, what will they actually do?
Quote: ams288I'd say that's the position of most voters this year.
I have so many solid Republican family members who just aren't going to vote for President this year. It's amazing.
I think I will write in my own name. I know I could do a better job than either of them with just a little on the job training.
But if you think about it, there must be a bunch of usual Democrat voters who will be voting for Trump. There is no other way to explain how he he is somewhat close in the polls.
Then reality hit--she is not telling us everything once again. If I take some information from a classified document--specifically the part that makes it have that label--and type it in an email, there is no header saying that it is "classified" in any way unless I put it there. I have now mishandled classified material. Intentionally or unintentionally, I have done something wrong. If I take that material and double down on my mistake by transmitting it outside of the secured government environment for classified material, I have made an even bigger mistake.
If i don't handle things outside the proper channels, there is much less of a chance of a mistake or of the compromise of the material.
NO ONE who has actually sat through and listened to a briefing on the handling of classified material could ever misunderstand the importance of keeping it secure and not essentially leaving it where anyone can find it. NO ONE should ever handle classified material without the proper briefing.
Why she continues to lie about these things baffles me. Everyone knows she is lying every time she opens her mouth about ti and everyone knows that she is the odds-on favorite to be elected in spite of here lies. Why does she feel compelled to lie in this situation instead of just saying that she was wrong, she takes responsibility, and protection of classified information will be a priority in her administration?
Quote: RonCWhen the curtain closes on the voting booth, what will they actually do?
Does anyone actually vote behind a curtain anymore?
Quote: SOOPOOI think I will write in my own name. I know I could do a better job than either of them with just a little on the job training.
But if you think about it, there must be a bunch of usual Democrat voters who will be voting for Trump. There is no other way to explain how he he is somewhat close in the polls.
I doubt that very much. There are two basic reasons why someone might not vote for Trump: a) loathing and b) ideological/party position. Any Democrats voting for Trump would have to overcome both those objections. You can see Republicans overcoming a) because of b), however, especially since Republicans in general are so loathsome that Trump just represents a new wrinkle in loathesomeness; you have to hold your nose and stifle the gag reflex to vote for ANY Republican.
I think what we are seeing here is a more rabid support base for Trump than for Clinton. Trumpers are eyes-bugged-out batshit crazies and evil bigots, and those sorts of folks tend to be more...motivated than sane people. Clinton supporters are more along the lines of "meh, we'll vote for her; better than that Trump loony." Couple that with the lingering effects of the Bernie-poo phenomenon, and it's easy to envision far more Democrats than Republicans simply not responding to the polls.
I doubt you could do a better job than Clinton. She has extensive experience in government, which you and others dismiss but is actually critical to doing the job. You could definitely do a better job than Trump, but then, so could my cat. (My cat would never start a nuclear war, for example--he understands that such an event might severely impact his personal supply of Little Friskies.)
Quote: ams288Does anyone actually vote behind a curtain anymore?
No...I used that more as a figure of speech to represent the privacy of the ballot box. I don't think I ever voted behind a curtain; I voted absentee for the first 20 years I was eligible to vote.
Quote: RonCNo...I used that more as a figure of speech to represent the privacy of the ballot box. I don't think I ever voted behind a curtain; I voted absentee for the first 20 years I was eligible to vote.
I remember going to vote with my parents when I was a kid and there was a curtain and you actually pulled a lever.
Those days seem to be long gone. When I lived in Ohio, they had electronic machines. Now in Michigan it's paper ballots that you feed into a machine once you are finished.
Anyway, to answer your original question, when election day comes around, I could see them staying home over actually going out and voting for Trump.
My dad has been watching a lot of Glenn Beck lately - not a good indication that'd he'd secretly vote for Trump.
Quote: ams288I remember going to vote with my parents when I was a kid and there was a curtain and you actually pulled a lever.
Those days seem to be long gone. When I lived in Ohio, they had electronic machines. Now in Michigan it's paper ballots that you feed into a machine once you are finished.
Anyway, to answer your original question, when election day comes around, I could see them staying home over actually going out and voting for Trump.
My dad has been watching a lot of Glenn Beck lately - not a good indication that'd he'd secretly vote for Trump.
I get that and respect it. I also wonder, though, with people like one of our members calling everyone who could possibly even consider voting for Trump all kinds of names and suggesting their elimination (very Hitler-esque) out there, how many people just won't say they will vote for Trump and will when they are actually casting their ballot??? I am betting that some of them who may do that are still undecided at this point about what exactly they will do...
Quote: ams288Does anyone actually vote behind a curtain anymore?
I didn't think there was any other way! You pull a lever to close the curtain, then you vote, and when you are done you pull the lever to register your vote and it simultaneously opens the curtain.
Quote: ams288I'd say that's the position of most voters this year.
I have so many solid Republican family members who just aren't going to vote for President this year. It's amazing.
Then I assume they will accept responsibility for the Supreme Court Justices Hillary will appoint and the next 8 years of all that Hillary does. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Not voting is a vote for Hillary
Quote: 487tracydriveThen I assume they will accept responsibility for the Supreme Court Justices Hillary will appoint and the next 8 years of all that Hillary does.
In all honesty, I don't think they'd care much...
The only time I voted that way, I was voting for Reagan in 1980.Quote: SOOPOOI didn't think there was any other way! You pull a lever to close the curtain, then you vote, and when you are done you pull the lever to register your vote and it simultaneously opens the curtain.
Quote: RonCI don't think that there is much of a chance of the race being close in Texas. There were 2.8 million Republican votes in the primary; the Democrat party had a little over 1.4 million votes. Even with a huge Cruz victory, Trump only was behind the landslide Democrat winner by less than 200,000 votes. The 1.2 million Cruz voters may not vote, but the ones that vote won't do so in large numbers for Hillary.
I do see Texas heading towards a possible change in direction in the future; I just don't think this is the year or Hillary is the candidate. Outside of Austin and some other liberal enclaves, Democrats on the national level seem to only come here for money. There would have to be a lot of money spent to have a chance at changing Texas: I just don't see a campaign doing that this year.
Resources such as time and money is finite, however, Hillary's campaign can take some calculated risk by diverting few of their resources to Texas.
The possibility of Texas in Hillary's winning column this November is written in The Atlantic (see below).
Liberals have long dreamed of turning Texas into a Democratic stronghold. However improbable that ambition, some Democrats believe the politics of the Lone Star state are already shifting in their favor, and insist there’s a chance that Hillary Clinton could upend Republican power and influence by defeating Donald Trump in Texas.
Read more here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/clinton-texas-trump/499097/
Quote: 777
Liberals have long dreamed of turning Texas into a Democratic stronghold. However improbable that ambition, some Democrats believe the politics of the Lone Star state are already shifting in their favor, and insist there’s a chance that Hillary Clinton could upend Republican power and influence by defeating Donald Trump in Texas.
I don't think it's all that improbable. Seems that cities are typically Blue while us country folk are typically Red. And Texas has some hip, happenin', growing big cities, seems unavoidable that it will get bluer by the day.
And if Texas goes, Jesus. Joesh might just get his wish and Team Red will go the way of the Whigs.
I say bring it on. Sooner we destroy Red the sooner we can git to destroying Blue =)
You mean back into a Democratic stronghold. Texas was actually dominated by Democrats for over 100 years into the 1990s, with Ann Richards being the last Democratic governor. And Jim Hightower, who's ultra, ultra-left, was Agriculture Commissioner from 1983-91. Texas was one of the *few* states to go blue in the 1968 election, and did so in 1976 also.Quote: 777Liberals have long dreamed of turning Texas into a Democratic stronghold.
In other news, what will it take for Trump to win? This winding election map from FiveThirtyEight tells the story succinctly:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder
Trump would need to turn only four of Clinton's weakest states red: Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and New Hampshire. That's in order from easiest to hardest, but even in the hardest state, NH, Clinton is ahead by only 3 points. So, President Trump is a distinct possibility.
Quote: MichaelBluejaySo, President Trump is a distinct possibility.
The betting odds, which I think are the best estimator, suggest a 29% chance.
Quote: WizardThe betting odds, which I think are the best estimator, suggest a 29% chance.
29% too much!
How many of your countrymen want that moron to Represent you? Keep you safe? Lead you?
FFS We're doomed that as a nation, you can end up with such an insane choice of nominees..
FiveThirtyEight suggests 31.7%, which is pretty close. That's nearly 1 in 3. Like, if the election were held three times, he'd win one of them.Quote: WizardThe betting odds, which I think are the best estimator, suggest a 29% chance.
It's amazing to me how much support he has. No experience, no coherent plans, insults women and Hispanics, flip-flops on a nearly hourly basis, shows no understanding of current issues, criticized by officials in his own party including military and intelligence leaders from Republican administrations, and he's STILL trailing a sane, experienced, former Secretary of State by only a couple of percentage points. If he can do that well with such an incredible amount of baggage, it seems that had anybody just slightly less ludicrous run, they'd walk away with the election easily.
Quote: MichaelBluejayFiveThirtyEight suggests 31.7%, which is pretty close. That's nearly 1 in 3. Like, if the election were held three times, he'd win one of them.
It's amazing to me how much support he has. No experience, no coherent plans, insults women and Hispanics, flip-flops on a nearly hourly basis, shows no understanding of current issues, criticized by officials in his own party including military and intelligence leaders from Republican administrations, and he's STILL trailing a sane, experienced, former Secretary of State by only a couple of percentage points. If he can do that well with such an incredible amount of baggage, it seems that had anybody just slightly less ludicrous run, they'd walk away with the election easily.
It just means negativity works. Lying works. Making wild and impossible promises works. People want somebody to blame. They don't want to dig out a day at a time, or invest in our common future, or help the poorest or weakest of us via government routes.
I don't think Hillary is the Second Coming. But I think she's damned fine. I don't know how someone who's not paying attention to the details is supposed to focus past the garbage and the sound bytes and see how good she is. Past the false equivalencies and the shade and the twisting and spinning all sides of the media and the campaigns are throwing, some trying to be fair, others deliberately being unfair to suit their agendae. It's gonna be a goat rope. And we ain't seen nuttin yet.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt just means negativity works. Lying works. Making wild and impossible promises works. People want somebody to blame. They don't want to dig out a day at a time, or invest in our common future, or help the poorest or weakest of us via government routes.
I am ashamed for my country that that idiot has a ghost of a chance of winning, let alone massive support. I had thought that Joe Sixpack, sitting on his couch and blaming everybody but himself for his shitty life, was not a major element of the American electorate. Turns out, Joe Sixpack is REPRESENTATIVE of it.
I must sadly conclude that whenever people perceive that their rice bowl is not as full as it should be, common decency, democratic principles, and tolerance go out the window--and shockingly quickly, at that. We're only halfway decent to each other in the absence of a crisis. We have all this high falutin' language in our cherished founding documents and noble speeches, but one mild recession, and the party whose aim is to eradicate all the lesser breeds has regained its dominance.
We, the American people, are idiots and a**holes, and we deserve Trump, whether or not we actually get him this time. And while I'm not a Republihole, I share the blame for not doing everything in my power to stop them.
What exactly could you do? That is, if you respect democracy. As you said, the problem isn't Trump, it's that nearly half of America supports him. Anything you could say to those masses has already been said and discarded. They'd just call you a Libtard, and tell you that Clinton's carelessness with her email server is somehow worse than having Absolutely. No. Experience, spouting out pronouncement after pronouncement that have Absolutely. No. Basis. In. Reality, having almost no coherent policy positions and what few he does have are Completely. F!#/ing. Crazy (e.g., The Wall), etc.Quote: JoeshlabotnikI share the blame for not doing everything in my power to stop them.
My perception is that the right used to be made up of people like RonC, who had different policy ideas than the left but who weren't completely batshit crazy. Man, that's all changed. I'm not sure if it's that the crazies always existed but we didn't know because there was no Internet, or if it's because they've been raised on Fox News. Probably a combination.
Both parties are filled with slimy scumbags and also with people with whom the other side will never agree. They aren't one and the same, though some may be both. Big money people on both sides attempt to, and are sometimes successful at, controlling the agenda. It is in the establishment in both parties best interest to maintain the "status quo" and have the elections swing gently from side to side every few years. It keeps most of the same people in power though the actual top dog may change from time to time. The legislative branch accomplishes nothing because both sides take things to far in a particular direction and refuse to compromise. They refuse to compromise, even based on principle. because they might lose reelection. Reelection, not the betterment of the country, is the goal of politicians. in spite of Jim Moran's stance that Congress is underpaid, I would say that they are way overpaid (by us or by the whoever) because they like to stay in office rather than stand for something.
Sometimes accomplishing nothing is okay--it keeps them from screwing things up more. Other times, we need things accomplished in order to move forward. Immigration is an issue that should have been forced upon the President (Bush or Obama, it does not matter which one as both are flawed in different ways--as is every human) to either sign or not sign a negotiated agreement that makes sense to a majority of the people. Neither really worked towards that--Republicans wanted to protect the companies that hire illegals and make money; Democrats want to protect their windfall of votes based on the thought that all immigrants will vote their way in future elections. If there was anything put forward that offended BOTH of those parts of the individual parties, something may have actually gotten done.
It isn't realistic for anyone to write some worthless diatribe about "Republiholes" and suggest they be voted off the island when a very similar group of people with a different position but the same desire to control the agenda exists on the other side. What it really does is make writings look more like those of someone out of touch with reality than someone who in other ways writes some decent commentary. Each party has good and bad things about them...just like most of us do individually. I know and respect a lot of liberals; I just don't always agree with them.
So here we are. We have two candidates for President that emerged from the process. One of the two ran by running against the status quo; the other won as a representative of the status quo. A large number of people from both parties voted against the status quo. The candidate who, by resume alone, seems to be the most qualified has sullied her reputation over the years with numerous scandals (real and imagined; though most Democrats don't like to spend any time on the real ones) that lead many to question her fitness to hold the office. It is an office that was quite literally stained by the actions of her husband. Since he is part of the package, the good and bad of the former President come into play as well. She represents the status quo. The other candidate is deeply flawed, has no political resume, and likely should have lost in the primary process. He was counted out numerous times. His candidacy represents the dissatisfaction with the status quo. Calling his potential voters names does not help anyone--they are average Americans who have the right to vote just like everyone else.
The truth is that we will survive either one of them. The Supreme Court may go one way or the other, but that swing will be countered by swing in the other direction if the people decide in the next election cycle (or the one after that) that they don't like how things are going. It is likely that the "status quo" will continue even if the candidate against it wins because it is so entrenched in Congress. Either choice will do some good things and some bad things like most of their predecessors.
Maybe we will really decide to look at things like poverty and find that both parties have screwed that up and we have created a class of people of all colors who have lost the desire to do the simple things like get to work on time and earn a paycheck because, well, the government already hands out a lot of money that some can get much easier than they can get money by actually doing something useful. That portion of the population may not be huge, but it outbreeds the worker bees because, well, what else is there to do with no job? Will the takers grow so much that the givers can't give enough? You see, that is not a Democrat or Republican problem. That is an American problem.
Will we work to solve American problems moving forward, or will we maintain the "status quo"? If Hillary is elected, will she listen to the little voice of Americans saying "no" to doing things the same with the same results or will she hear Americans and lead without the fear of losing the next election? How would a President Trump actually govern?
It all won't impact many of us, as has been mentioned here more than once, but there are a whole lot of Americans who don't need the status quo to continue.
That might be wishful thinking. Trump could very easily start a nuclear war. That's not at all far-fetched when you consider that his mode of operation is to never compromise, never back down, show an air of toughness, lash out at anyone who disagrees with him, etc. Can you imagine Trump during the Cuban Missile Crisis?Quote: RonCThe truth is that we will survive either one of them.
Quote: MichaelBluejayThat might be wishful thinking. Trump could very easily start a nuclear war.
Wow. That's exactly what the Lefties said
about Cowboy Reagan in 1980. There
were even ads saying that. Congrats on
being completely irrelevant and redundant
at the same time.
Quote: RonC
The truth is that we will survive either one of them.
Didn't they say the same about Rome? I don't speak Latin.
Quote: MichaelBluejayThat might be wishful thinking. Trump could very easily start a nuclear war. That's not at all far-fetched when you consider that his mode of operation is to never compromise, never back down, show an air of toughness, lash out at anyone who disagrees with him, etc. Can you imagine Trump during the Cuban Missile Crisis?
+1
Can you even imagine him in 1-1 talks with ANYONE at the next G8 or G20 meeting. He could start 20 wars with 20 allies just by starting trivial diplomatic incidents.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2651273/Obama-charms-Queen-fine-manners-guides-stairs-D-Day-event-Russias-Putin-looks-unimpressed.html
I think the only politician qualified to bring him down might by our Queen Elizabeth. We haven't locked anyone in the Tower of London for a while, but there's a suite reserved for him there. Send him over, Liz will sort him out.
Quote: EvenBob. Congrats on
being completely irrelevant and redundant
at the same time.
Come over to DT, the above statement pretty much describes EB's political posts there
EB is all over the supposed Clinton health scandal
EB sais he sees this story everywhere
Quote: EvenbobIt's all I'm seeing today, this story. Now
10 prominent doctors have come out
and said what the hell is going on. If
this was Trump, it would be on the
nightly news for the full half hour
every night.
After a bit of research, we discovered EB gets all his news from the tabloids. lol
Talk about irrelevant and redundant
http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/685/265/
Quote: OnceDear+1
Can you even imagine him in 1-1 talks with ANYONE at the next G8 or G20 meeting. He could start 20 wars with 20 allies just by starting trivial diplomatic incidents.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2651273/Obama-charms-Queen-fine-manners-guides-stairs-D-Day-event-Russias-Putin-looks-unimpressed.html
I think the only politician qualified to bring him down might by our Queen Elizabeth. We haven't locked anyone in the Tower of London for a while, but there's a suite reserved for him there. Send him over, Liz will sort him out.
No thanks. Our country was a part of yours once; we have desire to allow your figurehead queen to take care of our issues. It didn't work well for us from the beginning...
Trump won't start a nuclear war.
Trump won't be perfect.
Trump probably will not be elected anyway. I don't know why everyone is getting their internet panties in a wad over something that won't be done by someone who won't get elected.
Quote: MichaelBluejayThat might be wishful thinking. Trump could very easily start a nuclear war. That's not at all far-fetched when you consider that his mode of operation is to never compromise, never back down, show an air of toughness, lash out at anyone who disagrees with him, etc. Can you imagine Trump during the Cuban Missile Crisis?
I don't think so...first, of course, he is not even favored to be elected.
I bet he will do decent in negotiations if it comes down to him actually being elected. He'll have some missteps; but so will a President Clinton...and so has every President that I can remember and more than a few before that...
Quote: bobbartopDidn't they say the same about Rome? I don't speak Latin.
We're electing a President who can fail re-election or, if he does something really wrong, be impeached like, well, Clinton. Once impeached, he can be tried and removed from office.
I don't think they had those options in Rome. Removal from office had to be done in other ways.
Pretty much goes along with what I wrote--both sides are screwed up!
I was of course being tongue in cheekQuote: RonCNo thanks. Our country was a part of yours once; we have desire to allow your figurehead queen to take care of our issues. It didn't work well for us from the beginning...
Such complacency. Would you give a monkey the keys to your SUV in the confident knowledge that he probably wouldn't crash it into a bunch of pedestrians. Raise that to the power of a gazzilion. Would you give a monkey residence in the Whitehouse AND give him the keys to your nuclear arsenel? Would you give him a seat at the G8?Quote:Trump won't start a nuclear war.
That one supposedly intelligent person could WANT Trump in a position of power is an atrocity.
FFS Understatement at its finest!Quote:Trump won't be perfect.
That's what they said about Brexit. Even many of those those who supported Brexit wish they'd thought it through, especially the 'vote leave' leaders who stepped down when they won.Quote:Trump probably will not be elected anyway. I don't know why everyone is getting their internet panties in a wad over something that won't be done by someone who won't get elected.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/opinion/donald-trumps-big-liar-technique.html?_r=0
Here is an excerpt:
Back to the issue: All politicians are human beings, which means that all of them sometimes shade the truth. (Show me someone who claims to never lie, and I’ll show you someone who is lying.) The question is how much they lie, and how consequentially.
And over all, her record on truthfulness, as compiled by PolitiFact, looks pretty good for a politician — much better than that of any of the contenders for the Republican nomination, and for that matter much better than that of Mitt Romney in the last presidential election.
Mr. Trump, on the other hand, is in a class of his own. He lies about statistics like the unemployment rate and the crime rate. He lies about foreign policy: President Obama is “the founder of ISIS.” But most of all, he lies about himself — and when the lies are exposed, he just keeps repeating them.
And here is a reference link to Trump's lies as compiled by PolitiFact:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/?page=1
(3 pages long)
Hopefully the debate moderators take note. They need to hold him accountable.
No we don't. We have one candidate for President, and another who is cynically co-opting the political process to build his brand because he believes it will lead to a media conglomerate. Trump is running a campaign almost entirely with other peoples' money and has built a potential consumer base of 40M voters (that is, viewers). Building that kind of fan base would take hundreds of millions of dollars if done through normal channels -- user acquisition costs are often in the $5-$10 range for media -- but 40M users is often worth billions in total value. If you've done any mass media marketing, such as with social gaming (as I have) you understand the scope of these numbers. Double Down Interactive was sold for $500,000,000 in 2012 because it had around 1.5M daily users and about $300k/day in revenue. If Trump is looking at a 30x multiple on those figures, that's about 45M users, $9M/day revenue, and a corporate value of $15B. And he's building that empire for free using campaign contributions.Quote: RonCSo here we are. We have two candidates for President that emerged from the process.
It's a brilliant marketing move but it's a shameful abuse of the political process.
The national tragedy that is unfolding here is not that one candidate has no experience in political leadership but has a meaningful vote share anyway. The real tragedy -- one that won't change soon after the election regardless of who wins -- is that those 40M Americans are so gullible, angry, apathetic, or some combination thereof as to be willing to vest power in a fraud like Trump, someone whose actions betray his words and illuminate his true motives. He has no interest in "making America great" either now or in the future via the political process. He just wants more money and fame, and he's willing to sacrifice the credibility of the U.S. political system to get it.
If your apartment is on fire, it's reasonable to want the firefighters to show up with a pressurized fire hose rather than a squirt gun or a plastic cup full of water. But if the only firefighters who show up have squirt guns or plastic cups, you try to find some buckets and more water and you get to work putting out the fire. You don't turn to the guy with the flamethrower who promises "the fire will be out quicker if I'm in charge." Yes it will, but at the cost of your building.
There are a small number of people who really do want to burn down the building. There always will be, and by themselves they have no ability to succeed. But this time around, there are far more people who don't understand the fraud being carried out here and who are being duped into believing this charade. But in truth, a vote for Trump is a vote to sacrifice your greater good for the benefit of Trump's bank account. With enough of those gullible, unthinking, defrauded voters along for the ride, Trump might succeed. Don't let him.
Quote: MichaelBluejayWhat exactly could you do? That is, if you respect democracy. As you said, the problem isn't Trump, it's that nearly half of America supports him. Anything you could say to those masses has already been said and discarded. They'd just call you a Libtard, and tell you that Clinton's carelessness with her email server is somehow worse than having Absolutely. No. Experience, spouting out pronouncement after pronouncement that have Absolutely. No. Basis. In. Reality, having almost no coherent policy positions and what few he does have are Completely. F!#/ing. Crazy (e.g., The Wall), etc.
My perception is that the right used to be made up of people like RonC, who had different policy ideas than the left but who weren't completely batshit crazy. Man, that's all changed. I'm not sure if it's that the crazies always existed but we didn't know because there was no Internet, or if it's because they've been raised on Fox News. Probably a combination.
What I can do is try to educate the ones who are still somewhat on the fence and show them that the remedies that Trump offers for their perceived plight are illusory, and implementing them would be worse than useless. I agree that the nutballs are out of reach, but there are a lot of folks out there who have become Trumpers because they're weak and easily fooled, not because they're stupid and evil.
Why do I feel I have this duty? Because I'm articulate and a good writer, and I feel passionate about the devolution of America into a perversion of itself. I also actually believe in the "all persons are created equal" shtick and feel that Trump and Trumpers are out to murder that idea in cold blood. So I have a responsibility as a citizen and more fundamentally, as a human being, to stop the spread of Trump's hateful ideas.
You won't be able to stop the spread of those ideas. He has more money than you, he's building a media empire, and he's not going to stop pandering to racists and bigots. You can't stop him from doing that.Quote: JoeshlabotnikI also actually believe in the "all persons are created equal" shtick and feel that Trump and Trumpers are out to murder that idea in cold blood. So I have a responsibility as a citizen and more fundamentally, as a human being, to stop the spread of Trump's hateful ideas.
But you may be able to stop him from defrauding 40% of the American public into voting for him along the way. There are many people with you in that goal, including Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook:
Quote: Dustin Moskovitz, announcing a $20M donation to various Democratic effortsThe Republican Party, and Donald Trump in particular, is running on a zero-sum vision, stressing a false contest between their constituency and the rest of the world.
