Donald Trump

timmyntc

Exeggcute wrote: »

It is quite pathetic. The man is the worst candidate in living memory and the media resort to this kind of nonsense to discredit him. Christ, he practically discredits himself, there is no need for it and yet the overwhelming media bias plays straight into his hands.

The reason being that Hilary Clinton is a very close 2nd*, and whereas any other candidate would simply have to exist to be more likable than Trump, Clinton is not any other candidate.

*Arguably 1st

Mardy_Bum wrote:

I think it is time to call a spade a spade; the people supporting Trump (not the anyone but Hillary supporters) are largely uneducated, socially and economically deprived, hive minded, probably remarkably unintelligent (EDL in America types) and have sat in front of the television for the past 30 years eating up fox news and like to blame everyone but themselves for their ills. The type of people who wouldn't know where China is on a map or even Asia probably.

That is not to say Hillary is some saviour. She to is up to her neck in dodgy dealings. It is the lesser of two evils to vote for her though.

This is exactly the kind of thing that spurred on the Brexit vote. People dismissing the opposition as nothing more than ignorant, inferior, racists and bigots. These are real people, with real concerns and fears - such as the ever shrinking middle class, or the working class who have seen their quality of life shrinking year after year with nothing done about it. Are they right to trust Trump when he promises them the world? Hell no! But he's the only one promising them anything, the only one addressing their concerns. So when people such as yourself dismiss this large voting bloc as nothing more than stupid fat idiots who watch Fox News you do nothing but further entrench them in their views, and you risk pushing independents onto that side also - as the arrogance in your statements is a real turn off.

K-9

The narrative has changed, Trump was seen as a master manipulator in the primaries, now his mouth can't stop getting him in bother.

Primaries are very different campaigns. Michael Dukakis ran a great primary campaign for the Democrats in 88 but was a disaster in the Presidential. Even Dukakis probably wonders how the fcuk he got picked.

Trent Houseboat

Exeggcute wrote:

The Trump as Russian puppet candidate calling for state hacking of Clinton for one. And today, the assassination nonsense.

Is Trump part of the conspiracy? He did call on Russia to hack Clinton and he did say that 2nd amendment people could stop Clinton if she were elected.
How do you think those well regulated militias would try to stop her?
It's dog whistle at it's least subtle.

Exeggcute

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Is Trump part of the conspiracy? He did call on Russia to hack Clinton and he did say that 2nd amendment people could stop Clinton if she were elected.
How do you think those well regulated militias would try to stop her?
It's dog whistle at it's least subtle.

No he didn't. Though Dems continue to interpret it as such. Even the head of U.S. intelligence, James Clapper, called the accusation "hyperventilating".

They are a huge voting and lobby bloc. That's how.


Every time the Dems and media blow up Trump's comments with this "hyperventilating" they are playing straight into his hands.

BoatMad

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I think it is time to call a spade a spade; the people supporting Trump (not the anyone but Hillary supporters) are largely uneducated, socially and economically deprived, hive minded, probably remarkably unintelligent (EDL in America types) and have sat in front of the television for the past 30 years eating up fox news and like to blame everyone but themselves for their ills. The type of people who wouldn't know where China is on a map or even Asia probably.

That is not to say Hillary is some saviour. She to is up to her neck in dodgy dealings. It is the lesser of two evils to vote for her though.

we have a fundamental crises in western Democracies. You see it in our own elections here, the Brexit referendum and the US primaries and election.

Firstly we have an increasing body of the public that dont fact check, coupled with 24/7 soundbite news that delivers opinion as fact. we have the widespread decrying of experts, replacing that with the sanctity of the " man on the street " ( who in reality actually knows very little ) .

We have a collapse , particularly in the US of printed news media and its historical role in providing longer informed commentary, replaced by a plethora of unchecked rant driven blogs and websites that are virtually delivering lies.

Faced with this barrage of "opinions " over facts and the acceptance of sound bite media , we have a public that is less educated then every before on issues of the day

in the US , particularly in the GOP, the radicalisation of it buy the Tea party elements, and certain religious conservatives has placed it in the same position as the Labour party in the UK. A surfeit of ideology over practical governance.

Remember the internet also tends to exacerbate the issue as it gives undue prominence to those that shout the most, often small groupings with big agendas.


Along comes Trump ( and people like Farage) that realise that in fact you can say almost anything and a large section of gullible people will believe you and not fact check or read an alternative view. Then the campaign depends into both sides adopting the same process and the supporters , that claiming that one side is worse then the other and the process descends into a cult like support, i.e. it matters not that the facts are , I ve decided to support you , irrespective

in this regard democracy fails. this is because democracy needs a degree of common acceptance that the truth will be told. When you have divisive situations with huge polarisation , then democratic debate fails and tyrants exploit that

we live in dangerous times, consensus has broken down and our political institutions are failing us

Penn

Samaris wrote: »

Is it just me, or is most of this election people looking at each other in disbelief and going "Did he really just say that?"

(Paraphrased from someone earlier on Twitter)

Trump Supporters: We support Trump because he means what he says!
Trump: *says something offensive*
Trump Supporters: No no, he didn't mean that...

BoatMad

This is exactly the kind of thing that spurred on the Brexit vote. People dismissing the opposition as nothing more than ignorant, inferior, racists and bigots. These are real people, with real concerns and fears - such as the ever shrinking middle class, or the working class who have seen their quality of life shrinking year after year with nothing done about it. Are they right to trust Trump when he promises them the world? Hell no! But he's the only one promising them anything, the only one addressing their concerns. So when people such as yourself dismiss this large voting bloc as nothing more than stupid fat idiots who watch Fox News you do nothing but further entrench them in their views, and you risk pushing independents onto that side also - as the arrogance in your statements is a real turn off.

Here lies the fallacy of the whole approach, the basic idea that simply because someone agrees with your situation and proclaims that he or she has the answer to your problems, they deserve your "unquestioning " support

its a form of political money lending , leeching of the troubled and the angry. funny we typical ban or control money lending .......

The fact is that Trumo like Farage, was not interested in the truth , in fact he( Farage ) didnt really believe he would be actually successful, all he believed in was to win . Trump is the same. winning is more important that veracity.

on an objective view, you have these groups you mention, potentially supporting a billionaire capitalist with a economic plan that will enrich the rich , it all bizarre.

the fact remains, that to partipicate in the democratic process, requires a level of understanding by the voters as to what they are voting for. It also requires that a consensus and commonality of purpose be applied to the process, democracy is not about what " you" can get out of the process. ( but that is what it has become )

The media has a huge amount to answer for, in the past most media was responsible and balanced, today in a 24/7 soundbite 140 word, 10 second attention span era, it has decedent into the muck and dragged its readership with it

politics cant fix everyone woes, it cant cure people that got chucked out of coal mines or thrown out of that low skilled manual job that went to Asia, and the media hold an enormous responsibility in telling its listeners and readers just that .

but no, now we have belief is superior to fact

democracy cannot work when politics descends to the level of religion

Trent Houseboat

Exeggcute wrote:

No he didn't. Though Dems continue to interpret it as such. Even the head of U.S. intelligence, James Clapper, called the accusation "hyperventilating".

Clapper was talking about the everyone jumping to the conclusion that it was Russia.

I was talking about when Trump said:

Donald Trump wrote:

Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press

El_Duderino 09

K-9 wrote:

Hillary doesn't have to say or do anything atm to win, just sit back and watch.

That's going to be a problem for her when she actually becomes president. If it's like how David Cameron did better than expected but the opposition became so weak and ineffectual that the criticism ended up coming from his own party and that criticism stings all the more.

She will likely inherit a deeply divided country and struggle to get anything done. The liberals and anti trump voters will get a shock when 'Hillary the Hawk' wants to send the military here, there and yonder and the conservatives who vote for her will have a conniption when she enshrines public health care and appoints judges with values of the average 50 year old instead of the 80 odd year olds on the supreme court now.

Billy86

Penn wrote: »

(Paraphrased from someone earlier on Twitter)

Trump Supporters: We support Trump because he means what he says!
Trump: *says something offensive*
Trump Supporters: No no, he didn't mean that...

Pretty much, hence why they get so wound up and complain about 'the liberal media' for literally repeating exactly what Trump says.

seamus

BoatMad wrote: »

we have a fundamental crises in western Democracies. You see it in our own elections here, the Brexit referendum and the US primaries and election.

Firstly we have an increasing body of the public that dont fact check, coupled with 24/7 soundbite news that delivers opinion as fact. we have the widespread decrying of experts, replacing that with the sanctity of the " man on the street " ( who in reality actually knows very little ) .

We have a collapse , particularly in the US of printed news media and its historical role in providing longer informed commentary, replaced by a plethora of unchecked rant driven blogs and websites that are virtually delivering lies.

Faced with this barrage of "opinions " over facts and the acceptance of sound bite media , we have a public that is less educated then every before on issues of the day

I agree and disagree.

I don't believe the public has ever fact checked, or been good at it. This is how old wives' tales and urban legends abound. If anything the public has gotten better at not taking everything as honest truth.

I don't think the public is less educated on the issues of the day, in fact I think the public receives far more diverse information about current affairs than they ever have before. And they are better "informed" about current affairs than ever before.

But I use quotes around "informed" because I agree with the statement that what we receive in general is a barrage of opinion more than facts. We know more than we ever did about what's currently happening in the world, but it's all slanted, and how educated we are about it is a combination of how much we trust the source that's telling us, and how prepared we are to do our own research. Which we know in general is not something most people are prepared to do.

What I believe this is revealing is a population that is far faster to change and call for change. Where fifty years ago your news and ideas came from a handful of sources all generally biased towards the popular opinion, this meant that popular opinion changed slowly, it flowed and moved gradually over time.
Now your news comes from a variety of sources which have no requirement to be biased towards popular opinion. Indeed "non-conformist" ideas and opinions tend to shout the loudest and be more interesting to people, no matter how right or wrong they are.

The end result is that new ideas disseminate quickly and popular opinion can change far more rapidly. Rather than seeing a shift from one generation to the next, we are seeing shifts in opinion occuring within the space of five to ten years.

The most obvious comparisons would be the amount of time it took the civil rights movements to get people to recognise the rights of women and black people versus the time it took to improve the rights of homosexuals and transgender.

Western Democracies struggle because they're still geared towards more gradual change and can't cope with the appetite for change that modern populations want.

Mardy Bum

timmyntc wrote: »

The reason being that Hilary Clinton is a very close 2nd*, and whereas any other candidate would simply have to exist to be more likable than Trump, Clinton is not any other candidate.

*Arguably 1st



This is exactly the kind of thing that spurred on the Brexit vote. People dismissing the opposition as nothing more than ignorant, inferior, racists and bigots. These are real people, with real concerns and fears - such as the ever shrinking middle class, or the working class who have seen their quality of life shrinking year after year with nothing done about it. Are they right to trust Trump when he promises them the world? Hell no! But he's the only one promising them anything, the only one addressing their concerns. So when people such as yourself dismiss this large voting bloc as nothing more than stupid fat idiots who watch Fox News you do nothing but further entrench them in their views, and you risk pushing independents onto that side also - as the arrogance in your statements is a real turn off.

My post is about Trump supporters from the beginning not turncoats.

Trump is going to be beaten by near record margins in this election. It most certainly is not akin to Brexit.

Brexit campaigners have not come close to spouting the ignorant, threatening, racist, sexist, and prejudiced rhetoric that Trump has.

The Republicans know he is going to lose. He cannot attract traditional party money. He doesn't even seem like he wants to win himself.

The real issue as you have pointed out is the vast numbers of lower middle and working class people who are hugely ignorant, who appear to lack any critical thinking skills and because of this pick candidates that will only hurt them. A lot of this stems from the media that these people consume which limits their world view and critical thinking.

Rupert Murdoch is a large part of this problem.

El_Duderino 09

ohnonotgmail wrote:

how could congress stop a government department from conducting such a study given the separation of powers?

They defunded the bejesus out of it. They made sure that it can't even keep a count of the number of gun deaths or categories them to actually understand the types of deaths which are occurring. Doesn't matter what your politics are, that's shameful.

BoatMad

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's going to be a problem for her when she actually becomes president. If it's like how David Cameron did better than expected but the opposition became so weak and ineffectual that the criticism ended up coming from his own party and that criticism stings all the more.

She will likely inherit a deeply divided country and struggle to get anything done. The liberals and anti trump voters will get a shock when 'Hillary the Hawk' wants to send the military here, there and yonder and the conservatives who vote for her will have a conniption when she enshrines public health care and appoints judges with values of the average 50 year old instead of the 80 odd year olds on the supreme court now.

this is very true and is a problem in all western democracies , how to bring consensus in deeply divided situations.

I dont think Hilary will be any more Bellicose then any other US administration , and they all have been far too bellicose, nor do I think Trump would be any different, The US promotes its agenda abroad, and that from time ti time desends to military intervention , Rep, or Dem, the same thing happens.


Again , we shall see, the US system of executive and congress etc, can be effective where there is bi-parisan approaches , the system is designed for consensus and the elimination of aggressive ideologies

The trouble is the republicans have moved away so far from their traditional centre right position as to be unrecognisable and the system of government has no means to cope with that

Billy86

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Trump is going to be beaten by near record margins in this election.

He is likely to get hammered, but the pedant in my says nobody will ever get close to 1984 - in terms of the electoral college system anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984

525 delegates vs 15... 97.5%.

Mondale was a terrible candidate, but a huge part was the famous "It's morning time in America" ads.

K-9

Exeggcute wrote: »

No he didn't. Though Dems continue to interpret it as such. Even the head of U.S. intelligence, James Clapper, called the accusation "hyperventilating".

They are a huge voting and lobby bloc. That's how.


Every time the Dems and media blow up Trump's comments with this "hyperventilating" they are playing straight into his hands.

That worked within the Republican party in the primaries, they didn't know what to do about him and they ended up with Cruz as his challenger!

Hillary is just largely ignoring Trump. The message that came out of the Democratic convention was "how can you trust a guy who can't control himself on twitter to be US president?" and Trump has answered that question twice in a big way, with the Khan's and his comments last night.

The answer is you can't. Trump has a chance but the longer it goes on the more and more it becomes had.

Penn

Interesting write-up on Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-lies/

K-9

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's going to be a problem for her when she actually becomes president. If it's like how David Cameron did better than expected but the opposition became so weak and ineffectual that the criticism ended up coming from his own party and that criticism stings all the more.

She will likely inherit a deeply divided country and struggle to get anything done. The liberals and anti trump voters will get a shock when 'Hillary the Hawk' wants to send the military here, there and yonder and the conservatives who vote for her will have a conniption when she enshrines public health care and appoints judges with values of the average 50 year old instead of the 80 odd year olds on the supreme court now.

If she wins Republicans would be favourites next time anyway, because usually after 12 years people just want a change. Republicans could well fcuk it up next time but assuming no Trump like figure comes a long, it will be there's to lose.

Exeggcute

The funny thing about the Dems and their media pals hyperventilating over Trumps latest remarks is that they seem to forget Hillary's "RFK was assassinated in June" comment when she was refusing to drop out against Obama last time.

Just more of their hypocrisy. They are well and truly in GOP loon territory in this election.

K-9

Exeggcute wrote: »

The funny thing about the Dems and their media pals hyperventilating over Trumps latest remarks is that they seem to forget Hillary's "RFK was assassinated in June" comment when she was refusing to drop out against Obama last time.

Just more of their hypocrisy. They are well and truly in GOP loon territory in this election.

Yep it backfired and was desperate, seems Hillary has learned not to say stupid things, or the campaign team has her on a leash. You can't house train the Donald.

Exeggcute

She's on a tight leash alright. Trump seems to be everywhere, Hillary seems to only make very carefully controlled appearances.

What is she afraid of?

Pro Hoc Vice

Exeggcute wrote: »

She's on a tight leash alright. Trump seems to be everywhere, Hillary seems to only make very carefully controlled appearances.

What is she afraid of?

When the opposition taking their own bullets why take risks. Intended pun there.

K-9

Exeggcute wrote: »

She's on a tight leash alright. Trump seems to be everywhere, Hillary seems to only make very carefully controlled appearances.

What is she afraid of?

She's winning. She's not a good campaigner at all so Trump is playing right into her hands.

I think Trump supporters expected him to be leading the polls or at least equal by now. It's slowly starting to dawn on them that what worked in the Republican primaries isn't working now and Trump can't adapt. The economy, the economy over and over is the message he needs to send out and Trump can't do it.

BoatMad

K-9 wrote: »

She's winning. She's not a good campaigner at all so Trump is playing right into her hands.

I think Trump supporters expected him to be leading the polls or at least equal by now. It's slowly starting to dawn on them that what worked in the Republican primaries isn't working now and Trump can't adapt. The economy, the economy over and over is the message he needs to send out and Trump can't do it.

The main reason is that a platform of fear mongering , doom predictions and basically saying America is broken, is not playing well with the general population. The problem is The Donald has no other play

Samaris

Exeggcute wrote: »

She's on a tight leash alright. Trump seems to be everywhere, Hillary seems to only make very carefully controlled appearances.

What is she afraid of?

She knows she's not liked by a lot of people. She can't look like she's goading Trump, just stand back and let him destroy himself rather than going for limelight that will not necessarily be favourable. This is one election where not having the headlines is probably the better deal.

Harry Palmr

Trump Pence not worth Tuppence

PopePalpatine

Exeggcute wrote: »

The funny thing about the Dems and their media pals hyperventilating over Trumps latest remarks is that they seem to forget Hillary's "RFK was assassinated in June" comment when she was refusing to drop out against Obama last time.

Just more of their hypocrisy. They are well and truly in GOP loon territory in this election.

The difference is Hillary didn't word her worries along the lines of, "Maybe the States' Rights people can do something about an Obama-picked Supreme Court doing something they don't want."

Foxtrol

K-9 wrote: »

It's slowly starting to dawn on them that what worked in the Republican primaries isn't working now and Trump can't adapt. The economy, the economy over and over is the message he needs to send out and Trump can't do it.

His problem is that he is a narcissist and sees himself as a showman. When he is in front of those big crowds and senses them getting restless/bored (as the types that attend his rallies are not there/cant handle policy based speeches) he goes off message to drag them back in and he shoots himself in the foot. For a number of his gaffs you can actually see the moment he pauses and goes off his planned remarks.

BoatMad

K-9 wrote: »

If she wins Republicans would be favourites next time anyway, because usually after 12 years people just want a change. Republicans could well fcuk it up next time but assuming no Trump like figure comes a long, it will be there's to lose.

This time it was there for the taking, if as expected Trump fails, The GOP has only itself too blame, it has outstanding moderate candidates like McCain and Jeb Bush, etc , yet it is caught up in the tea party radicalisation ,the Palin fiasco, etc that middle america wants no truck with.

The GOP is unelectable at present and will remain so. A duck could beat Clinton.

The GOP needs a serious re-think or it will go the route of the UK labour party and end up being a small protest party of right wingers Rand school of economics types

Billy86

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The difference is Hillary didn't word her worries along the lines of, "Maybe the States' Rights people can do something about an Obama-picked Supreme Court doing something they don't want."

Also, Clinton apologised.

Also, not that it made it right but Obama was an exception in his own right...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04obama.html?_r=0

The secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, authorized the protection for Mr. Obama after consulting with a Congressional advisory committee that reviews security for presidential hopefuls. The decision to assign agents to Mr. Obama, nearly nine months before voting begins in the Democratic primaries for president, is the earliest the Secret Service has ever issued a security detail to a candidate.

Also, Clinton did get hammered in the media for it. Is this the same media that is 'in the Clintons pocket' or 'afraid of being murdered if they don't back her' or whatever other crap has been thrown around lately, out of paranoid desperation from Trump fans?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=0
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_shes_still_in_race.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/23/hillaryclinton.barackobama
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/23/wow-hillary-sticking-around-in-case-obama-gets-shot/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052303158.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/23/clinton.comments/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/clinton-kennedy-assassina_n_103319.html
http://nypost.com/2008/05/24/hills-assassin-talk-a-shocker/

Clinton later apologised for her comment... who here sees Trump having the wherewithal to do the same?