Donald Trump

Arturo Bandini

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Would Trump do much worse then Nixon and the two Bush presidents?
I doubt it.
There seems to be some people that seem to think that he is an American version of Hitler.

Hillary is clearly the most qualified on paper but if you were the job interviewer would you warm to Hillary?

In comparison to Trump she makes him seem like a people person!

The thing I like about Trump is that he does not seem as beholden to vested interests as he used his own money to run for office.

Personally, I wouldn't vote for either candidate and it shows up why America need a strong third party. America is not really a Democracy it is a Duopoly with vested interests taking one side or the other.

I agree. My main problem with this campaign is the medias bias. Yes Trump may be a bad president, but to give Hillary a pass because Trump said some offense things is insane.

People seem to feel the need to pick a side, but you can have a problem with both.

Society is in a bizarre state when someone who says offensive things is treated worse than someone who actually has a shady past.

ScumLord

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm not just talking about the power of the mob. I'm talking about where the money is and what that implies in terms of changing power structures.

Social media is being used by (for example) IS to recruit and as a communication system. This wouldn't have been possible even ten years ago. There's a change in the theatre of guerilla warfare, where now anyone, anywhere could be the enemy.

But social media is a by product of the western world, freedom of information, high end technology and the social structure to carry it off. It becomes a bit ramshackle and ineffective without the structure of the western world. We may see it as simple and always there but it requires a very high level of infrastructure and social order to exist in the first place. If those two things start to come under threat social media could be one of the first things to go.

It's also a broad sword, most of the information on it is unreliable at best, it really is like watching a mob that never gets tired. It might be able to incite people into action but it does it in such a simplistic way that all it does is incite discombobulated anger among a load of people who don't like each other.

Samaris

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

She's the most qualified by far. She has drawbacks but they are political. Trump's drawbacks are psychological. Only one of them should ever be running for high political office.

Yeah, that was well said. Clinton has faults but they're politician's faults. Trump barely understands what politics is.

Foxtrol

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Would Trump do much worse then Nixon and the two Bush presidents?
I doubt it.
There seems to be some people that seem to think that he is an American version of Hitler.

Disagree, Trump has shown practically no self-control. The only time I’d take him over either was when Nixon went heavy on the booze when his impeachment was gathering steam.

Hillary is clearly the most qualified on paper but if you were the job interviewer would you warm to Hillary?

In comparison to Trump she makes him seem like a people person!

Who cares about warmth when the other candidate for the job is both totally unqualified and unhinged?

The thing I like about Trump is that he does not seem as beholden to vested interests as he used his own money to run for office.

This is not really true. He’s taken money from whoever will give it to him and continues to pay his own companies and family for services to the campaign. He ‘self financed’ his primary campaign but it was nearly totally a loan until he won the race, and despite saying he was paying for that whole campaign a sizeable portion were donations.

Personally, I wouldn't vote for either candidate and it shows up why America need a strong third party. America is not really a Democracy it is a Duopoly with vested interests taking one side or the other.

There’s no space for a third party in US politics. Starting one on the left or the right just guarantees the other side dominance, for example starting a party left of the democrats would just ensure that the republicans would hold power in nearly every level of government, meaning they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Both the democrat and republican parties are pretty much a combination of diverse views under a large umbrella.

Billy86

Arturo Bandini wrote: »

I agree. My main problem with this campaign is the medias bias. Yes Trump may be a bad president, but to give Hillary a pass because Trump said some offense things is insane.

People seem to feel the need to pick a side, but you can have a problem with both.

Society is in a bizarre state when someone who says offensive things is treated worse than someone who actually has a shady past.

Trump has zero political experience, absolutely none. Therefore, we cannot judge him on his political actions but only on what he says.

When he says things like banning all Muslims from entering the US, he is basically proposing to cause major tensions in the world (as in, far worse than now). When he talks about 'nuking the sh*t' out of chunks of the world he is doing even more damage, and letting us know he has no regard for the rest of the world whatsoever (whether we mean as people, as nations, or as an actual habitable entity for humans at all). When he implies he has never met a good Mexican, and that they are murderers, criminals and rapists that their country is "sending over", he is agitating this worse. When he talks about forcing them to build a giant wall, he is proposing to agitate for out and out war with Mexico by claiming he will force them to pay it, and if when that fails, he is proposing to bankrupt the US in terms of build cost but more importantly, maintenance and manning costs. And when he claims he will kick all the illegal immigrants out of the country ASAP, he is guaranteeing that he will bankrupt his country. Because even if someone wants to undertake the massive task of removing as many illegal immigrants as possible, it would have to be done quite gradually as the US literally cannot afford to lose them all at once.

And that's just the start of it.

BoatMad

Arturo Bandini wrote: »

I agree. My main problem with this campaign is the medias bias. Yes Trump may be a bad president, but to give Hillary a pass because Trump said some offense things is insane.

People seem to feel the need to pick a side, but you can have a problem with both.

Society is in a bizarre state when someone who says offensive things is treated worse than someone who actually has a shady past.

would you prefer to be driven home in a taxi driven by a driver " with a shady past" or one that is pathologically deranged !!!

Renegade Mechanic

BoatMad wrote: »

would you prefer to be driven home in a taxi driven by a driver " with a shady past" or one that is pathologically deranged !!!

Er... Which one's which

El_Duderino 09

BoatMad wrote:

would you prefer to be driven home in a taxi driven by a driver " with a shady past" or one that is pathologically deranged !!!

Renegade Mechanic wrote:

Er... Which one's which

Good point RM. As you point out, Trump has a shady past and is pathologically diagnosable, but he has no experience of being a politician.

CMOTDibbler

BoatMad wrote: »

would you prefer to be driven home in a taxi driven by a driver " with a shady past" or one that is pathologically deranged !!!

Am 'I' male or female?

CMOTDibbler

Just come right out and say it Donald, don't beat around the bush:

If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks, Although the second amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Is this the first time a presidential candidate has suggested assassination of their opponent?

Samaris

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Just come right out and say it Donald, don't beat around the bush:



Is this the first time a presidential candidate has suggested assassination of their opponent?

...

Why are people supporting this guy?

Billy86

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Just come right out and say it Donald, don't beat around the bush:

Is this the first time a presidential candidate has suggested assassination of their opponent?

Well the other week was the first time (I know of) that a US presidential candidate asked a foreign country to hack the US government for him. Apparently he did ok actually getting on point the last day or two, but this looks like he's going back into free fall meltdown mode again.

Billy86

Samaris wrote: »

...

Why are people supporting this guy?

You've got some blue collar workers who are just desperate and have no faith in anything system related - going to Trump might not make any real sense, but they are the type of people snake oil salesmen like Trump exploit best. And for all the bad things about him, make no bones about it, Donald Trump is a f***ing fantastic salesperson, marketer and hype man (and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense).

After that, disillusioned Republicans for whom the letter beside the politicians name is God - the be all and end all, and absolutely nothing else matters, no matter what. As in would vote for Hitler (not making that comparison, before someone gets defensive ) over FDRoosevelt, so long as Hitler had (R) beside his name. And yes, there are Democrat voters who do the same.

And then... good old fashioned racism, xenophobia and bigotry. And make no bones about it, they make up a considerable chunk of the fan base. Outside of the US, I would actually say they make up the majority. This group inside the US tends to focus strongly on Mexican and Muslim immigration; outside the US there is not nearly as much attention on Mexicans (though there is on general illegal immigration) but a higher emphasis on Muslims. It's their own prejudices bursting through, essentially.

The media for all their complaining can thank themselves in no small part too, this is where 20-odd years of disinformation, misinformation, fiction-as-reality journalism, and ADHD-style scattergun stories with no in depth research or analysis have gotten us. Most Trump fans don't seem aware for example that policies are a thing that presidential candidates tend to have.

Skylinehead

He really can't help putting his foot firmly through his face can he?

CMOTDibbler

Skylinehead wrote: »

He really can't help putting his foot firmly through his face can he?

To continue the theme, somebody said recently that he could shoot himself in the foot whilst it's in his mouth.

Renegade Mechanic

Ah here, that could have meant anything, in particular the fact that the gun groups have been one of the greatest thorns in the sides of politicians against them on ever level - far more than just the assassination one.

Man's bad enough, picking **** out of the sky only discredits genuine concerns further.

And wether or not ye want to admit it, he's 100% right. Hillary gets her judges and that's it. But hey, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

El_Dangeroso

Skylinehead wrote: »

He really can't help putting his foot firmly through his face can he?

The people in the background's reaction is priceless, and these are the people chosen to nod and whoop at everything he says.

Penn

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Ah here, that could have meant anything, in particular the fact that the gun groups have been one of the greatest thorns in the sides of politicians against them on ever level - far more than just the assassination one.

Man's bad enough, picking **** out of the sky only discredits genuine concerns further.

And wether or not ye want to admit it, he's 100% right. Hillary gets her judges and that's it. But hey, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

It meant exactly what everyone is saying it did. As explained by others, his comments are predicated on Hillary already being POTUS, therefore not a case of 2nd Amendment supporters voting in force or similar.

And if it were about the election itself, there would have been no need to single out 2nd Amendment supporters. The only thing that separates them from everyone else is guns and the idea of an armed militia. That is what Trump was referring to. Nothing else.

Samaris

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Ah here, that could have meant anything, in particular the fact that the gun groups have been one of the greatest thorns in the sides of politicians against them on ever level - far more than just the assassination one.

Man's bad enough, picking **** out of the sky only discredits genuine concerns further.

While one could argue it more gently...it's Trump. That was the joke he was making, and I only hope it -was- entirely a joke.

Honestly, the more I see of him, the more I would be horrified to wonder what he'd be like with power. It's hardly the first time he's encouraged violence (against protesters). He's got plenty of wiggle-room there, but that was utterly unbecoming of someone running for office. And coupled with all his other idiocies, it's another warning sign of how he thinks.

CMOTDibbler

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Ah here, that could have meant anything, in particular the fact that the gun groups have been one of the greatest thorns in the sides of politicians against them on ever level - far more than just the assassination one.

That's a stretch. A much bigger one than the obvious. Why would he be appealing to one voting bloc to stop Hillary when they already would be against her? As well as the fact that it would be clearly easier to just appeal to everyone to vote for him and not her to prevent the selection of 'liberal' judges.

Though the whole notion of liberal judges is laughable in the first place. Liberal I suppose for a given value of liberal.

Renegade Mechanic

Penn wrote: »

It meant exactly what everyone is saying it did. As explained by others, his comments are predicated on Hillary already being POTUS, therefore not a case of 2nd Amendment supporters voting in force or similar.

And if it were about the election itself, there would have been no need to single out 2nd Amendment supporters. The only thing that separates them from everyone else is guns and the idea of an armed militia. That is what Trump was referring to. Nothing else.

If believing that helps keep "Literally Adolf Hitler" out of the Whitehouse and gets "Literally Elizabeth Bathory" in, then knock yerselves out. It's clearly what ye want. I just hope you're outnumbered.

Samaris

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

If believing that helps keep "Literally Adolf Hitler" out of the Whitehouse and gets "Literally Elizabeth Bathory" in, then knock yerselves out. It's clearly what ye want. I just hope you're outnumbered.

This isn't about politics, RM. I'd be saying the same stuff if this guy was a Democrat. He's a loose cannon and he's absolutely unqualified and -dangerous-. Forget the nukes, the president can do awful harm to a country by ignorance, malice or stupidity, and Trump's got all three, particularly the first two. He's is profoundly unprepared for the task he's wanting to take on, and all this **** he's saying is building up a truly horrifying picture of the man that -could- lead the United States.

This is beyond politics at this point. Clinton isn't the best choice, but at this stage, another four years of Dubya would be better than Trump getting into the White House. I'd absolutely vote Bush over him and I know how badly he damaged the science sector.

As mad and alarmist as it seems, great and liberal democracies (I mean in the general sense, not the political sense) have fallen to madmen's antics before. It's a lesson from history, and no matter how unlikely it seems that -America- could ever fall to that, many of us do see very scary signs from him.

Penn

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

If believing that helps keep "Literally Adolf Hitler" out of the Whitehouse and gets "Literally Elizabeth Bathory" in, then knock yerselves out. It's clearly what ye want. I just hope you're outnumbered.

And to you, mate.

Billy86

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Ah here, that could have meant anything, in particular the fact that the gun groups have been one of the greatest thorns in the sides of politicians against them on ever level - far more than just the assassination one.

What else could "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" mean in this context then?

And wether or not ye want to admit it, he's 100% right. Hillary gets her judges and that's it. But hey, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

Except that is not correct, once again Trump has shown himself to not even know how basic politics work. The President inky nominates the judge, the Senate are the ones who need to confirm it, and have in the past rejected about 20 appointments, the most recent coming in 2005. Currently the Republicans hold a 54-44 lead in the Senate, but elections are being held for it the same day as for the presidency.

You'd think someone in a two-horse race for president would at least know a very basic fact like that, given that if he wins he will be the one nominating a judge.

InTheTrees

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Though the whole notion of liberal judges is laughable in the first place. Liberal I suppose for a given value of liberal.

Exactly. Liberal in an american sense which really just means Not Conservative.

However don't underestimate the importance of the next presidents supreme court appointments. These appointments will have long lasting effects on american life. They are a presidents lasting legacy.

Billy86

InTheTrees wrote: »

Exactly. Liberal in an american sense which really just means Not Conservative.

However don't underestimate the importance of the next presidents supreme court appointments. These appointments will have long lasting effects on american life. They are a presidents lasting legacy.

Not just this one either, Kennedy is 80, Ginsburg 83 and Breyer 78. The winner of this election could wind up having the nomination on 4 of the 9 supreme court judges, almost definitely if they secure a second term (though I wouldn't hold my breath for either there). It's currently 4-4, two of the older ones are Democrat appointments and one a Republican appointment.

The potential swings in the other houses are big too, but the potential Supreme court appointments are ridiculously important in this cycle. Nobody has been able to have 4 appointments since Dwight Eisenhower.

K-9

Samaris wrote: »

While one could argue it more gently...it's Trump. That was the joke he was making, and I only hope it -was- entirely a joke.

Honestly, the more I see of him, the more I would be horrified to wonder what he'd be like with power. It's hardly the first time he's encouraged violence (against protesters). He's got plenty of wiggle-room there, but that was utterly unbecoming of someone running for office. And coupled with all his other idiocies, it's another warning sign of how he thinks.

Hmmm, the second amendment isn't something to joke about in American politics, particularly at the moment.

This is some sick social experiment somebody is running.

Skylinehead

https://twitter.com/SecretService/status/763142627202048000

!

CMOTDibbler

Skylinehead wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SecretService/status/763142627202048000

!

I suspect that they're getting inundated by calls from the press and others and decided to say "We know" out loud.

Bobeagleburger

It's worse this clown is getting.

Really appealing to the lowest form of voter.