Why Trumpers? I am truly baffled
Quote: Joeshlabotnik(and calling an entire nation criminals and rapists is a sure-fire way to get them to see things your way)..
While I'm not a fan of Trump's race baiting, that's not what he said. He said that if immigrants are totally unfiltered, you'll get rapists and murderers.
Makes sense, actually. That's a pretty good reason to flee your native country. That's why most countries have filters for anybody who visits, let alone immigrates.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik
The tea party is just a bizarre, extreme version of Republican orthodoxy. The Bernie-poo movement is just kids getting pissed at their parents because they didn't get a new car when they were 16, Take 500.
The Democrats will crush the Republicans in this year's elections precisely because they have proved better at unifying than the Republicans. The Democrats are acknowledging their differences but uniting for a common goal.
You're delusional. Hillary was almost as anointed as an incumbent. The party did everything but cancel the primaries. The media loves her. Yet she could only beat an old Jewish guy nobody had ever heard of by cheating. AIn't cuz everybody is on the same page as her, or has common goals.
Maybe that has to do with her being the exact opposite of those voters on the issues of: war, mass incarceration and drugs, TPP "free" trade and globalism, political corruption, corporate influence in government, student and personal debt and other such trivialities. Nope, I have pretty much zero goals in common with Hillary.
The division doesn't seem to be one of age, to me. At my caucus, we had several seniors in the Bernie camp. I'm over 30 and know many other Bernie supporters who are, (don't know any college kids). It's more a division between people world views and, to a degree, the level of attention one pays to politics.
Quote: RogerKintYou're right. We should be calling them a-holes and remind them to take their meds til they see things our way. You also seem to think its ok to make fun of one's skin color. All great ideas.
I never made any derogatory remarks about anyone's skin color. You may have had poor enough comprehension skills to misread something I said regarding Republican hatred for Obama because he's black.
Quote: RigondeauxYou're delusional. (blah blah)
Yes, you disagree with me, so I must be delusional. (roll of eyes)
If memory serves, the Democratic primaries actually took place, and were hotly contested. That may not have been the case on the planet you inhabit, but I was referring to Earth. Clinton didn't beat Sanders "by cheating." She beat him by getting three million more votes than he did. Sanders has had the grace and decency to acknowledge that simple reality (though it took a while). You, my poor "delusional" friend, should do the same rather than expending calories on a lost idea.
It's really, really tiresome to hear all these attacks on Clinton that have no substance and no proof. The Republicans tried for two solid years, expending immense public resources on two witch hunts. But if the guy who led the Whitewater investigations two decades ago couldn't find her guilty of any crime, and a partisan, biased investigation culminating in an eleven-hour interrogation couldn't find any wrongdoing on her part, where is the proof that she's all those horrible things that Trump and Trumpers say she is?
And since you appear to not have actually read my post, merely reacted to it, I'll spell it out for you: the Democrats will win big because they have done a BETTER job than the Republicans of unifying. B-E-T-T-E-R. Is the party unified? Not by a long shot. But they're mostly on the same page. Compare this with the millions of Republicans who can't overcome their revulsion and won't be voting for Trump. Consider the many Republican luminaries who didn't even attend the convention. Consider Chief Asshole Ted Cruz, whom Trump alienated--thus destroying what could have been a valuable asset--by insulting his family. Is the Democratic party completely unified? Of course not. But they're much more so than the Republiholes, who are all but challenging each other to duels.
And good riddance to the party of hatred, bigotry, and opposition to progress.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI never made any derogatory remarks about anyone's skin color. You may have had poor enough comprehension skills to misread something I said regarding Republican hatred for Obama because he's black.
YOU made fun of a specific person's skin color.
I know you're angry but personal insults are not welcomed here.
Quote: billryanIsn't a good part of the border National or State parkland?
A good part, yes, some national wildlife refuges, Big Bend National Park, and so forth. But Trump wouldn't have the authority to build structures on federal land that is designated as parkland. In fact, it would be considerably more difficult to do so than to invoke eminent domain against individual landholders. (Also, I believe some of the borderlands are part of sovereign Indian nations, such as the Tohono O'dham in southwest AZ.) If such public land was state-owned as opposed to federal, Trump would have even less authority. Summing it up, it's the idiotic fantasy of a demagogue who pulls ideas out of his ass first and thinks later.
I wonder if the Orange Orangutan even realizes that a President's power is sharply limited and that he/she can't make things happen by saying "Let it be so." As Head Bully of Trump Fraud, Inc. in its various guises, he has ruled by fiat. If elected to the Presidency (shudder), he will learn just how hard it is to get things done, even if the House and Senate are filled with his lackeys.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikThe Democrats are acknowledging their differences but uniting for a common goal.
Omitted that part of your original post. If you can edit your memory of your own writing that well, no wonder you can edit the rest of reality so well.
Quote: RogerKintYOU made fun of a specific person's skin color.
I know you're angry but personal insults are not welcomed here.
Nonsense. I said no such thing. You are welcome to misconstrue anything I said, but that doesn't make your interpretation correct. I notice that you didn't supply a direct quote of that thing I supposedly said. If you were referring to Republicans making racist comments about Obama, note that I put the relevant phrase in quotation marks. Do you know what quotation marks are and what they mean?
I guess I have to block you, and feel free to interpret that as craven reluctance on my part to match wits with your towering intellect and ineffable ideas.
Quote: RigondeauxOmitted that part of your original post. If you can edit your memory of your own writing that well, no wonder you can edit the rest of reality so well.
"ARE UNITING" is not the same as "have united" or "are united." I said they are moving toward a common goal.
It's such a shame that your rabid partisanship "Trumps" your reading comprehension skills. In a strange way, though, you have perfectly answered the question I asked to begin this thread. Why do people love Trump? Because they are willing to utterly ignore reality, and they actually ADMIRE the lies he makes up about his critics. So you are now officially a Little Mini-Trump! Congratulations!
Quote: Joeshlabotnik
I guess I have to block you, and feel free to interpret that as craven reluctance on my part to match wits with your towering intellect and ineffable ideas.
Go back and read your own posts. You made fun of someone's skin color. You're mad so now you're insulting my intellect? K I'm dumb but why are you so mad that you feel you have to insult me?
An earlier respondent said that those qualities were exactly why he was loved by his followers. I didn't really believe that--I thought that such persons were a tiny, tiny minority in the world--but I know better know. Thanks, Trumpers!
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI would like to thank in particular the Trumpers who responded to my post. By distorting what I said and personally attacking me for the heinous crime of criticizing their god, they have given me a greater understanding of why anyone could follow such an obvious fraud, liar, and all-around dirtbag. I've blocked two of the worst, because their usefulness has ended. But the way in which they emulated Trump by attacking me for daring to criticize him, and deliberately misstating what I said, tells me that there are some people who TRULY ADMIRE this racist, bigoted, misogynistic, xenophobic, lying, fraudulent, bullying man-child.
An earlier respondent said that those qualities were exactly why he was loved by his followers. I didn't really believe that--I thought that such persons were a tiny, tiny minority in the world--but I know better know. Thanks, Trumpers!
Your hot temper has reached a boiling point so now you're playing the victim? Can you quote where any members here attacked you personally? If needed I can show direct quotes where you personally insulted members here.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik"ARE UNITING" is not the same as "have united" or "are united." I said they are moving toward a common goal.
It's such a shame that your rabid partisanship "Trumps" your reading comprehension skills. In a strange way, though, you have perfectly answered the question I asked to begin this thread. Why do people love Trump? Because they are willing to utterly ignore reality, and they actually ADMIRE the lies he makes up about his critics. So you are now officially a Little Mini-Trump! Congratulations!
Holy god. I explicitly said I'm not a Trump supporter and outlined my lefty political views in some detail. I'll be voting Johnson or Stein. I go back and forth on which I'd prefer between Hillary and Trump. It's really a sickening decision. Luckily, I have the option of voting for someone who isn't terrible.
Since I oppose wars, mass incarceration, corporate and wall street rule, TPP, etc. I have few common goals with Hillary and would never, ever vote for her. Lots of people feel that way. She almost lost a primary in which the deck was so heavily stacked in her favor because people effing hate her. Far moreso than Obama, Kerry or Gore. This is reflected in every poll on the subject.
You're obviously not very in tune with the left (no, MSNBC doesn't count). It's just a fact that large numbers have expressed refusal to support Hillary, for the reasons above and others. I don't know, go on Twitter and search a few relevant phrases, then mentally edit them into what you want to see.
She did cheat. Haven't heard of the DNC leaks yet? Then she immediately hires payday loan industry representative, DWS to head her campaign.
All I said about Trump in response to you is that you were wrong about him calling the entire country of Mexico rapists and murderers, which is another fact.
"Utterly ignore reality." Yowzah.
All the illegal Mexicans should go back (except for the few hot ones, that's about 75% that should go back from here in LV).Quote: JoeshlabotnikIt's an asinine idea that has gotten far more discussion than it deserves:
1. If built in Mexico, it would be an invasion of the territory of a sovereign nation--an act of war.
2. If built in the US, it would necessitate seizing by eminent domain the landholdings of every single individual and organization that owned property abutting the border.
3. Your silly comment aside, it would cost a truly insane amount of money, and "they" couldn't pay for it even if we somehow convinced them to (and calling an entire nation criminals and rapists is a sure-fire way to get them to see things your way).
4. Trump would not have the authority to make it happen.
5. The eventual cost from the choking off of cross-border trade (either by complete closure or creating bottlenecks) would be in the trillions--hard to swallow for those business-savvy Republicans.
All that aside, anyone who thinks that the presence of Mexicans, legal and illegal, in the US is anything but a strong net positive needs to get back on his/her meds before it's too late.
Ill be sure to watch A Day Without a Mexican and see why I need my med's. Either way I don't care, I hope to be moving soon and I can always use the extra help. Not to mention the money they donate to poker games.
Why do they want to come here anyway's?
Quote: Joeshlabotnik<snip>Now, as we are somehow poised on the brink as Germany was in 1933<snip>
My concerns about Trump are well documented here, along with my concerns about Hillary.
I find it idiotic to compare Trump in any way to Hitler; and I don't see that as advancing the cause of HRC. Focus on getting her elected since she is such a fantastic candidate.
This one simple phrase in your opening diatribe makes it obvious that there is nothing really serious about your inquiry; it almost seems as if you are only writing in the political area to be nasty to other members. If they actually do respond to you with their feelings, you just attack them.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik<snip>All that aside, anyone who thinks that the presence of Mexicans, legal and illegal, in the US is anything but a strong net positive needs to get back on his/her meds before it's too late.<snip>
Holy crap. There is a huge difference between legal and illegal immigrants and I don't think ANYONE is saying to send back the legal ones. We do have an immigration issue with illegals that we have not dealt with, mostly because people from both sides with power--money--want them here so the will of the people is ignored (they benefit one side with anticipated solid votes and the other with cheap labor).
Your comment about "meds" is just another piece of evidence that you are just trying to be controversial rather than have a serious conversation with anyone.
Quote: RogerKintYou also seem to think its ok to make fun of one's skin color. All great ideas.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI never made any derogatory remarks about anyone's skin color. You may have had poor enough comprehension skills to misread something I said regarding Republican hatred for Obama because he's black.
Quote: RogerKintYOU made fun of a specific person's skin color.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikNonsense. I said no such thing. You are welcome to misconstrue anything I said, but that doesn't make your interpretation correct. I notice that you didn't supply a direct quote of that thing I supposedly said. If you were referring to Republicans making racist comments about Obama, note that I put the relevant phrase in quotation marks. Do you know what quotation marks are and what they mean?
Quote: RogerKintGo back and read your own posts. You made fun of someone's skin color.
Joeshlabotnik - I may be wrong in reading RK's intent but - think citrus.
However, even though it is usually used as a 'cheap PR stunt', I never have a problem with someone/anyone drawing correlations between circumstances in pre-WWll Germany and circumstances that exist today. Or you can use pre-Castro Cuba, or any of many possible correlations to conditions that existed that led to bad choices by the people there at the time. You have to remember, you must remember, that it is the people that hold the power. The gov't anywhere/anytime does not hold the power, the people loan it to the Gov't in their own self interest. This is good, usually. When enough people decide that the loan should be called in, things can get dicey in a hurry.
Do not dismiss the masses, they are the masses. They cannot be stopped if momentum reaches a critical point, even on the road to ruin.
Now I personally don't believe that any correlations between Trump and Hitler are realistically valid for a host of reasons. Just in case I missed something, I always encourage everyone to ponder the consequences of the choices that we, we the masses, make or don't make.
Choices you make, consequences you get. 2F
Quote: TwoFeathersATLI generally agree with just about everything RonC posts, (OK, just the vast majority ;-).
However, even though it is usually used as a 'cheap PR stunt', I never have a problem with someone/anyone drawing correlations between circumstances in pre-WWll Germany and circumstances that exist today. Or you can use pre-Castro Cuba, or any of many possible correlations to conditions that existed that led to bad choices by the people there at the time. You have to remember, you must remember, that it is the people that hold the power. The gov't anywhere/anytime does not hold the power, the people loan it to the Gov't in their own self interest. This is good, usually. When enough people decide that the loan should be called in, things can get dicey in a hurry.
Do not dismiss the masses, they are the masses. They cannot be stopped if momentum reaches a critical point, even on the road to ruin.
Now I personally don't believe that any correlations between Trump and Hitler are realistically valid for a host of reasons. Just in case I missed something, I always encourage everyone to ponder the consequences of the choices that we, we the masses, make or don't make.
Choices you make, consequences you get. 2F
I completely understand that we have to remember history in order to keep it from repeating itself in bad ways...but just bringing that kind of comparison up here (and anywhere else) in the election cycle is simply a diversion from the ugly choice we have for President. People tried to say Obama was going to introduce martial law in order to become President for Life or some crap like that. It just isn't going to happen, of course, and Trump is not going to bring on some Hitler-like regime even if he does get elected. The President may be someone we don't like, but he isn't as powerful as many think that he is.
I would be more worried about the masses who want stuff for free than the ones who are working and just want wage growth and better opportunities.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/07/democrats-need-to-stop-insisting-that-everything-is-going-well
DEMOCRATS NEED TO STOP INSISTING THAT EVERYTHING IS GOING WELL
That posture presents a formidable challenge for the Democrats. Trump is (as some predicted he would) positioning himself to the left of Hillary Clinton on many economic issues, decrying the influence of big business and the “disaster” of NAFTA. In doing so, he could well appeal to the millions of people who were drawn to Bernie Sanders because of Sanders’ willingness to fight for the working class.
....
These facts shouldn’t have to be reiterated. It’s been explained repeatedly, by everyone from the National Review to Noam Chomsky, that Donald Trump’s success emerges from working-class anxiety over these real social problems. As writer J.D. Vance tells it:
These people–my people–are really struggling, and there hasn’t been a single political candidate who speaks to those struggles in a long time. Donald Trump at least tries.
....
So far, centrist Democrats have been miserably bad at generating that kind of meaningful alternative (possibly because they are, themselves, largely the beneficiaries of inequality). In fact, by dismissing the concerns of working-class voters, and gushing about the Obama administration’s wonderful policy achievements, liberals almost seem to be mocking and taunting their working-class constituents.
As Emmett Rensin has written, elite liberalism has become characterized by a “smug style” that simply shouts “idiots!” at the “stupid hicks” who are getting “conned by right-wingers.
There aren't any right-wingers in this year's election. The closest is probably the Johnson/Weld ticket, at least of the folks who aren't de minimus minor parties and mathematically cannot win the presidency (like the Constitution party).Quote: RigondeauxOne more quote. Don't want to over do it, but it's particularly relevant.
As Emmett Rensin has written, elite liberalism has become characterized by a “smug style” that simply shouts “idiots!” at the “stupid hicks” who are getting “conned by right-wingers.
If someone believes in supply-side economics, that tax cuts for the wealthy is a net benefit for the nation's economy, and votes accordingly, that's a fairly-considered vote. I wouldn't agree, but I can't fault the vote on that basis. But that is categorically different than a voter, based on nothing other than blind faith and anger at the status quo, believing a proven swindler who says "Americans have a problem with $PROBLEM, only I can fix it, and that's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna fix it by making it so much better, believe me."
It doesn't matter whether you're a stupid hick or a smart urbanite, it absolutely is idiocy to believe a content-free promise like that, especially coming from a man with a well-documented history of defrauding others. I fully comprehend that a lot of people are pissed off about $PROBLEM but that doesn't mean the solution is to hire a guy with no experience just because he's yelling the loudest. You'd never do that for your car, your plumbing, or your health. Why on earth would you do that for the national economy?
For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that Hillary will win. She appears to be running headlong into a classic pincers movement, with Jill Stein on her left and Gary Johnson on her right. If Stein captures enough Hillary voters, and Johnson captures enough Hillary and Trump voters, it's possible that nobody gets to 270. If Johnson finishes #3, then the House picks from Trump, Clinton, and Johnson. Johnson might win in that scenario.
That's an interesting scenario to consider, but I have my doubts whether there is even a remote chance. In '92, Perot got 19% of the popular vote (including my first ever presidential vote!) and exactly 0 electors. It's tough for a 3rd party candidate (not to mention a 4th) to compete with the stranglehold that the two big parties have on the electorate.Quote: MathExtremistFor what it's worth, I'm not convinced that Hillary will win. She appears to be running headlong into a classic pincers movement, with Jill Stein on her left and Gary Johnson on her right. If Stein captures enough Hillary voters, and Johnson captures enough Hillary and Trump voters, it's possible that nobody gets to 270. If Johnson finishes #3, then the House picks from Trump, Clinton, and Johnson. Johnson might win in that scenario.
I know -- over the past century, there have been less than 100 electoral votes won in total by all 3rd parties. But this isn't a typical election cycle, and I've never heard of a candidate being so reviled by elected members of his own party. If the House were in Democrat hands and Clinton were in a runoff, there'd be no question what would happen. But the House is in GOP hands and a lot of them can't stand Trump...Quote: JoemanThat's an interesting scenario to consider, but I have my doubts whether there is even a remote chance. In '92, Perot got 19% of the popular vote (including my first ever presidential vote!) and exactly 0 electors. It's tough for a 3rd party candidate (not to mention a 4th) to compete with the stranglehold that the two big parties have on the electorate.
Even so I don't see the libertarians being strong enough to take a state. Maine and Nebraska each divide their votes so they could pick up a couple of votes. If the Libertarians knew how to really compete, this would be their year, but they have never tried to win. I read that Mary Matalin joined the Libertarians, so maybe they are starting to think along those lines.Quote: MathExtremistI know -- over the past century, there have been less than 100 electoral votes won in total by all 3rd parties. But this isn't a typical election cycle, and I've never heard of a candidate being so reviled by elected members of his own party. If the House were in Democrat hands and Clinton were in a runoff, there'd be no question what would happen. But the House is in GOP hands and a lot of them can't stand Trump...
Quote: MathExtremist
It doesn't matter whether you're a stupid hick or a smart urbanite, it absolutely is idiocy to believe a content-free promise like that, especially coming from a man with a well-documented history of defrauding others. I fully comprehend that a lot of people are pissed off about $PROBLEM but that doesn't mean the solution is to hire a guy with no experience just because he's yelling the loudest. You'd never do that for your car, your plumbing, or your health. Why on earth would you do that for the national economy?
Well, it just depends if you believe the story told by everyone from Chomksy, to Jeffery Sachs to Alex Jones. Have the elites been waging war on the middle class and lower for decades, trying to push this country to a third world model where they have everything and average people have nothing?
If so, nobody epitomizes that more than a politician with a personal fortune of $100 million, accumulated almost entirely through open corruption.
If you do believe that, you might see this as a decision between sitting in an electric chair and sitting in the passenger seat of a car with a very drunk driver.
e.g. MAYBE Trump really believes that we should fight wars rarely but have a strong military to win them decisively. I'm still not keen on his foreign policy, but I like that better than perpetual global conflict for corporate gain, which we know with total certainty is what Hillary favors.
I wish Trump was someone more like Perot, but this is what we've got to work with.
I disagree, especially if you're characterizing Clinton as more of an elite than Trump. Seriously? Trump's personal fortune is at least $1 billion, accumulated almost entirely through open corruption and for which he has been found guilty. Just going by the numbers, if Clinton is crooked, Trump is at least 10x as crooked.Quote: RigondeauxWell, it just depends if you believe the story told by everyone from Chomksy, to Jeffery Sachs to Alex Jones. Have the elites been waging war on the middle class and lower for decades, trying to push this country to a third world model where they have everything and average people have nothing?
If so, nobody epitomizes that more than a politician with a personal fortune of $100 million, accumulated almost entirely through open corruption.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-scandals/474726/
And Trump's tax plan accomplishes precisely the end-game of the class war you're talking about. By slashing taxes on the ultra-rich, he further widens that gap between the average people and the elites. And increases the debt by $11T over a decade to boot.
Don't vote for Hillary if she doesn't represent your values. Maybe she doesn't. But don't vote for Trump thinking he does -- Trump doesn't represent anyone's values. Your only real choice, if you're a conservative, is Johnson.
But, it's worth exploring the question posed in the OP, even though it was disingenuous.
I don't know about their tax plans, to be honest. So maybe that's a wash with TPP. But, as difficult as it is to undo legislation against progressive taxation, it's even harder to undo something like TPP. That will be a permanent and serious wound.
Ultimately, I lean to Trump I think, though I won't vote for him. The deciding factor is that if Hillary wins, given her massive unpopularity and her horrible policies, she's likely to lose in 2020. If the Reps get their act together and force a shill through the primaries, that's at least 8 years of badness. If she wins in 2020, that's also 8 years of badness.
If Trump wins, maybe he'll do some good stuff, like preventing TPP along with the bad stuff. Then, hopefully we can get rid of him in just four years.
Maybe the DNC will decide to win with someone who represents voters instead of losing with a warmongering shill. Unlikely, but possible. The resistance to the corporate wing is only going to grow in that time. All of this wasn't just about Bernie Sanders, the individual.
Edit: Oh yeah, Don's obviously crooked. He admits to bribing politicians and I'm sure there's much more. But his wealth does not come exclusively from being bribed to screw over the general population. Hillary is rich almost entirely because she's been paid to act as an agent for special interests in her role as a politician. This is not true of Trump.
I think that's a distinction without a difference. Trump is rich because he started with $1M and has made shady deals for his entire life, leaving a trail of financial wreckage and spiteful lawsuits in his wake. There are hundreds of people who could testify that Trump dealt fraudulently with them and caused significant, and sometimes fatal, financial damage to their lives or businesses. Trump's only claim to fame is his wealth and his name plastered on buildings and TV shows. He hasn't ever done anything important or, more to the point, for anyone else. Clinton, for all the corruption you allege, has nevertheless made significant advances on several important policy fronts both at home and abroad. She is objectively not, as Trump claims, a failure.Quote: RigondeauxEdit: Oh yeah, Don's obviously crooked. He admits to bribing politicians and I'm sure there's much more. But his wealth does not come exclusively from being bribed to screw over the general population. Hillary is rich almost entirely because she's been paid to act as an agent for special interests in her role as a politician. This is not true of Trump.
I'm not going to debate the question of whether Hillary is as corrupt as you believe. That's on her to demonstrate, not me, though the narrative from the Dem establishment seems to be "if you say it enough times, as the GOP has over the past four years, then it turns into the truth." But it seems entirely backwards to look at two political candidates, argue that they're both crooked, but give Donald a pass because he's much better at fraud and shady deals than Hillary. Of course he's better at it, that's all he's been focusing on for 20 years. Clinton has also been a children's advocate, legislator, and Secretary of State. She's been too busy to focus all her attention on executing shady deals the way Trump has.
And you just say you aren't going to debate Hillary and corruption? Really? Fair and balanced?
I think you can do so much better, so much better. Maybe you could be great, maybe you could make the whole country great again. You have so much to offer.
Nuttin' wrong with getting off to a bad start ;-)
Quote: Romes
2) Muslims are the problem, deport them. While I'm agnostic and don't claim a religion (math?) this is just plane old fear mongering and hate speech.
"Plane" fear mongering. W/r/t Muslims. Accidental typo, subconscious hidden bias, or something more sinister? You decide.
LOL, Jk, :-P, etc.
Donald is like a mobster. You'd prefer not to have him in your area, and it would be best not to deal with him. He's shady, he's screwed other people.
Hillary is like a mob goon who has been specifically hired to break your thumbs. Her money comes from entities that are paying her to act on their behalf against your interests in her role as president.
Quote: RigondeauxThe difference is in the nature of the corruption, not the degree.
Donald is like a mobster. You'd prefer not to have him in your area, and it would be best not to deal with him. He's shady, he's screwed other people.
Hillary is like a mob goon who has been specifically hired to break your thumbs. Her money comes from entities that are paying her to act on their behalf against your interests in her role as president.
Rig,
Seems like you're really wrapped around the axle of those speaking fees. I think you find them much more significant than they will prove to be. The speaking circuit at that level is crazy money for anyone, former secretary of state or defense, vp, prez, major ceo, whatever. They're paying for access then, not quid pro quo down the line. The Dem platform is break up big banks and pro Dodd Frank ; she's committed to that really whether she likes it or not.
Also, she did that stuff as a private citizen, before announcing. So did Ben Carson, so does newt Gingrich, dick Cheney, condi rice, Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, any number of them. It's just how the small to medium private conferences work, getting keynote speakers. They're all paid.
It's outrageous money, no question. But isolating Hillary for it is just right wing spin. Either they all do it, or the companies stop booking them. No fair middle to it.
Quote: beachbumbabs<snip> The Dem platform is break up big banks and pro Dodd Frank ; she's committed to that really whether she likes it or not.<snip>
This is laughable; the party platform is not something that either candidate has any real obligation to follow. It may highlight the differences in the parties but does not bind the candidate to campaigning for any particular thing or for actually doing that thing if elected.
"How much does the platform matter, anyway? It’s mainly a statement of principles. Candidates up and down the ballot—including the presidential nominee—are under no obligation to endorse or run on every item."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/a-laymans-guide-to-the-republican-and-democratic-national-conventions/489560/
""The nominee is not necessarily constrained by the formal platform. They can agree with whatever bits and pieces and ignore the rest," says John Sides, a political science professor at George Washington University. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/23/do-party-platforms-really-matter/
BBB also mentions a bunch of people who have made a lot of money through speaking fees. None of them hold, or are seeking, a current public office. HRC is a candidate for President and has been for more than eight years. There is no way one can automatically assume that quid pro quo is not a possibility when any of them take large amounts of money from special interest groups. I'll give you a clue--if HRC had minimal speaking fees with no ties pointing to certain businesses and a Republican candidate had the ones HRC has, the Democrats sure as heck would be calling that candidate out on it.
Quote: darkoz
My son simply points to the Trumpers as his evidence and that well over 90% of the people you see at his rallies are white and predominantly from "hick" states.
Tell your son that this statement makes him a racist by the standards of those who call Trump a racist.
Or perhaps on the brink of the United States in 1980.Quote: Joeshlabotnik....Now, as we are somehow poised on the brink as Germany was in 1933....
Quote: AZDuffmanTell your son that this statement makes him a racist by the standards of those who call Trump a racist.
AZD, that would be extremely stupid. It isn't racist to simply identify the ethnic makeup of an individual or group. However, "the standards of those who call Trump a racist" are that he constantly insults individuals and groups on the basis of their race, and advocates for policies that discriminate against people based on their ethnic makeup.
Are you saying that Trump ISN'T a racist??? Are you one of those people who excuses everything he says because of, I don't know, Trump love? How can anyone with a shred of moral fiber or decency defend that obnoxious bastard?
I note that in order to defend him, you've had to dredge up some pretty weak and flaccid arguments. I see that you've learned from Trump that the way to react to accusations is to attack the accuser. That's pretty limp.
Quote: AZDuffmanTell your son that this statement makes him a racist by the standards of those who call Trump a racist.
No, not according to the Liberal/Progressive standard of things...if they want it and you are against it, you are called all kinds of hateful names but you are not allowed to single them out for similar statements.
Quote: RonCNo, not according to the Liberal/Progressive standard of things...if they want it and you are against it, you are called all kinds of hateful names but you are not allowed to single them out for similar statements.
Yes, only them stinkin' Liberals (who, I guess, are different from plain old uncapitalized liberals) insult people. Conservatives merely make cogent, thoughtful statements on the race, gender, religion, or disability of people who disagree with them. They NEVER insult anyone who opposes them. Trump, for example, merely performed an entertaining impromptu dance when responding to a critic who had a disability. He didn't intend it to be insulting.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikWhat on earth makes this guy so appealing to so many people? I mean, his indisputable tens of millions of supporters are willing to overlook his a) racism b) bigotry c) utter lack of qualifications d) lies, half-truths, and distortions e) penchant for insulting anyone and everyone f) obvious ignorance of things like trade and foreign policy, and g) the fact that the man is a complete douchebag.
In response to some of your points:
a) It is not "racist" to be against ILLEGAL immigrants.
b) Many Blacks, Hispanics, etc. are "bigoted" against Whites, and the media makes nothing of that.
c) It is because he is an outsider and not a "career politician" that makes him appealing to some voters.
d) Many of Trump's opponents have made lies about him.
e) Many of Trump's opponents have insulted him, his hair, the size of his penis. What is your point exactly? What person has ever been elected without making some kind of insult or put down about their opponents?
f) Many labor unions, young people, etc. have expressed "anti-globalization" views. Some feel that free trade has cost jobs, pushed down wages and more. Trump's not the only one who has these views. Many on the political left have been against free trade at one time or another.
g) Douchebag is an OPINION not a "fact". If you think he's a douchebag, fine. No douchebag, asshole, jerk etc
IS such, but they may be perceived as such by some others.
Feel free to reply INTELLIGENTLY if you want.
Quote: darkozThe consensus with my children is that racism in America is alive and very well.
These are the views of my kids however when I watch a Trump rally, I start playing a "find the black man" game and most of the time I lose.
Here is my theory on the Republican party.
It is really supposed to be the party of the rich to protect their assets through lower taxes for the rich and higher taxes for the poor and for all types of concessions to big business to benefit the big players. Problem for them is the rich and elite in this country are only about 2%. That does not make a winning vote. So, how do you convince a bunch of poor and middle class people they should vote for rich people's agenda's? You appeal to the other issues they feel even more strongly about.
So, religiously against abortion? Republicans stress anti-abortion (which pits them against women and the right to choose)
religiously against homosexuality? Republicans stress anti-gay prohibitions (which pits them against homosexuals)
Whites are becoming a minority in America and the Republican party needs to understand that. Unfortunately, SOME non-Whites feel that welfare is better than work, that illegal immigration is OK, that a crime they commit is not their fault,etc.
Regarding homosexuality: Bill Clinton signed"Defense of Marriage Act" against gay marriage. Also Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have, in the past, said that they believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman only.
Finally, if Republicans are the"party of the rich" then how come so many Hollywood celebrities support the Democrats?
Replies appreciated.
Quote: nvr55xx
Feel free to reply INTELLIGENTLY if you want.
OK, Trump is a magnificent human being, and absolutely nothing he says or has said since he was born can be remotely construed as offensive by any reasonable person, unless, of course, that person is a no-good stinking liburrrul.
That's what you meant by INTELLIGENTLY (ooh, all caps!), right?
I'll make the utterly futile attempt to make you understand: it isn't Trump's stated policies and views that I object to; after all, many Republicans' positions are even more loathsome than his. What I object to is his petty attacks on people who criticize him, his petulance, his penchant for talking without thinking, his vindictiveness, his dishonesty (having cheated thousands of people), and his overall lack of character. Yes, he is indubitably, indisputably a douchebag. And an asshole. And a jerk.
The above seems so obvious that it generated the question I originally posed. How can his supporters excuse his behavior? My guess is that they have decided to destroy their moral compasses and abandon common decency in order to ensure that a Republican--ANY Republican, no matter how repulsive--gets elected. A noble goal indeed.
Of course, you have your partisan blinders on, so you luvvvvv Trump. And to counter the thought that has just bubbled to the surface of your brain, no, I'm not a Clinton supporter, nor am I a Democrat. You don't have to be either of those things to be disgusted by Trump.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikYes, only them stinkin' Liberals (who, I guess, are different from plain old uncapitalized liberals) insult people. Conservatives merely make cogent, thoughtful statements on the race, gender, religion, or disability of people who disagree with them. They NEVER insult anyone who opposes them. Trump, for example, merely performed an entertaining impromptu dance when responding to a critic who had a disability. He didn't intend it to be insulting.
As usual your post shows a total disregard for thoughts already expressed here by many about Trump's extremely bad habit of using insulting words even when making what might be decent points and you missed the point entirely. I will spell it out for you:
--Republicans/Conservatives/Trump make statements that are controversial. They are called all kinds of names. Sometime rightfully.
--Democrats/Liberals make statements that are controversial. Say anything about it and you are somehow lower than whale crap.
The latter are more intolerant of other positions than the former, but they use their supposed tolerance to mask it for their minions.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI'll make the utterly futile attempt to make you understand: it isn't Trump's stated policies and views that I object to; after all, many Republicans' positions are even more loathsome than his. What I object to is his petty attacks on people who criticize him, his petulance, his penchant for talking without thinking, his vindictiveness, his dishonesty (having cheated thousands of people), and his overall lack of character.
Yes, he is indubitably, indisputably a douchebag. And an asshole. And a jerk.
Some people like that Trump doesn't sound or act like a "typical politician". Trump doesn't lack character...he IS a character. 😆
Again, douchebag is an OPINION. For example: some may feel that a boss who threatens to fire an employee for being 2 minutes late is a "douchebag", but some may feel that the boss is being responsible and ensuring quality outcomes.
Quote: RonC
--Republicans/Conservatives/Trump make statements that are controversial. They are called all kinds of names. Sometime rightfully.
--Democrats/Liberals make statements that are controversial. Say anything about it and you are somehow lower than whale crap.
The latter are more intolerant of other positions than the former, but they use their supposed tolerance to mask it for their minions.
I feel that conservatives are more tolerant and willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. Conservatives usually, though not always, try to support their views with thought and evidence.
Trump is no conservative, and he replies to opposing viewpoints with ad hominem insults rather than cogent thoughts. He's not even internally consistent - see his position(s) on the minimum wage.Quote: nvr55xxI feel that conservatives are more tolerant and willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. Conservatives usually, though not always, try to support their views with thought and evidence.
And enough with "conservatives" do this and "liberals" do that. It's precisely that sort of overbroad generalization into mindless identity politics that leads to the present acrimony. Not all conservatives are alike, neither are all liberals, and that's a false dichotomy anyway. The fact that I think Trump is a selfish lunatic carnival barker doesn't make me an unwashed hippie communist. Bill Kristol and George Will are no communists but they also think Trump is unfit to be President.
It's quick and easy to place everyone who doesn't agree with you into the same bucket, but that's almost never accurate. Even on this forum, the people who oppose Hillary are not all of the same mind.
Does that also mean "enough" of the constant barrage of comments about the intelligence level of Trump supporters? I think we are both smart enough to know that there are people with varying levels of intelligence supporting each candidate. The Democrats may not say that they "love" the uneducated and uninformed. but they certainly do love them as much, if not more than, Trump.Quote: MathExtremist<snip>And enough with "conservatives" do this and "liberals" do that. It's precisely that sort of overbroad generalization into mindless identity politics that leads to the present acrimony. Not all conservatives are alike, neither are all liberals, and that's a false dichotomy anyway. The fact that I think Trump is a selfish lunatic carnival barker doesn't make me an unwashed hippie communist. Bill Kristol and George Will are no communists but they also think Trump is unfit to be President.<snip>
Also--why can someone here consistently call Trump the OO? can we call Hillary names regarding her appearance, too?
Quote: RonCAlso--why can someone here consistently call Trump the OO? can we call Hillary names regarding her appearance, too?
Cankles, The Pantsuit, Shrillary, Shillary, HillDawg, ShillDawg, $hillary, $hilldog.
I guess only the first 2 relate to her appearance.
Quote: AcesAndEightsCankles, The Pantsuit, Shrillary, Shillary, HillDawg, ShillDawg, $hillary, $hilldog.
I guess only the first 2 relate to her appearance.
Some of those have been used here, but not nearly as much as the OO thing has been used in relationships to the number of posts the terms are used in by any particular poster. There is a rumor that someone was actually suspended for a derogatory comment about Hillary; do you think they same thing would happen if there was a comment of that sort against Trump?
Quote: AcesAndEightsI guess only the first 2 relate to her appearance.
As if Melania would look twice at Trump if he didn't have money.
