It seems that everyone who I like and respect not only dislikes Donald Trump but hates him passionately. My family are pretty smart and easy going people, but all of the sudden with Trump they show extreme disgust and revel in the most petty gossip against him. I hear all over the media and in conversation how only stupid and bigoted people could possibly support him. And yet to me, when looking at the whole field of candidates we were offered, he honestly seems the most appealing. In real life Iʻm actually afraid to say this to anyone for fear of being ostracized.
The constant criticisms of him often strike me as petty, irrelevant and gossipy. This is perhaps a result of him offering little of substance to be critiqued. That is my main gripe with him actually - how vague he is on details. All he is offering are big promises that he will not deliver on, but I expect no less from any politician.
So what is my liking based on? I think that I see him as someone willing to take action rather than trying to appease everyone. In my view this was Obamaʻs flaw... despite being highly intelligent and congenial, he struck me as ineffective because he was always being trampled by the legislature and the whims of public opinion. I believe Trump would lead with a much firmer hand, whether for good or ill I honestly canʻt tell. But that gamble seems better than the certainty of continued rule by the two parties, who spend all their time sabotaging each other and trying to score points. Trump is the only candidate that strikes me as an individual rather than a cog in the two party machine.
For those who say yes, I would appreciate if you could elaborate, even briefly. It's interesting for me to hear the opinions of those outside the US especially.
On July 24 2016 03:18 Starlightsun wrote: For those who say yes, I would appreciate if you could elaborate, even briefly. It's interesting for me to hear the opinions of those outside the US especially.
.. you mean, before this thread gets ugly and closed?
The aforementioned presidential candidate you support (candidate for which I can't vote for or against myself, so it is easy to be clear cut).. he seems to spend a lot of time hating some people he has never met .., no? For a leader of the free world, does that not strike you as counter productive in 2016?
(I mean go and kill bad guys to make things better and basically shun everyone behind the ZardoZ wall.. yeah sounds kind of edgy to me for a "christian" in 2016)
Then again, the "for poor people too" opposing camp does not even seem to manage to produce an opponent worthy of international presence/fame/existence !?
I stay away from most information and as a frog, I don't even know the name of said opposing candidate .. unless it is beatrice levinsky clinton?
She old news and would lose from where i'm sitting.. i think the last thing i heard was that the "good" candidate got creamed even though he should obviously had been selected, .. sorry can't honestly remember the name...
She would be mean if she was elected .. you'll see (i mean you won't see anything because she will lose to wallmart tarantutrump!).. ... if she had won, she'd be meannnnnn
All in all your position is that of a guy that is joining the party late.. and choosing the favorite out of "strategic" intuition or something... so no you are not crazy.. you just don't get it!
On July 24 2016 03:22 fluidrone wrote: The aforementioned presidential candidate you support (candidate for which I can't vote for or against myself, so it is easy to be clear cut).. he seems to spend a lot of time hating some people he has never met .., no? For a leader of the free world, does that not strike you as counter productive in 2016?
(I mean go and kill bad guys to make things better and basically shun everyone behind the ZardoZ wall.. yeah sounds kind of edgy to me for a "christian" in 2016)
By "hating people he's never met" you are referring to Muslims I assume? While I think it is a childish and stupid suggestion to ban Muslims from entering the US, I don't get the impression that he is motivated by bigotry and hatred. He may be guilty of encouraging those things in a portion of his followers, but I think that policy-wise it is pure empty rhetoric, just like his promises to fix the debt, restore the peace etc. He strikes me as too cunning and pragmatic to be another George W Bush who launches war on the Islamic world. I could be very wrong of course but these are my impressions.
She would be mean if she was elected .. you'll see (i mean you won't see anything because she will lose to wallmart tarantutrump!).. ... if she had won, she'd be meannnnnn
My problem with Clinton is not that she's mean (I don't even think she is). What I don't like about her is her air of utter duplicity and cynicism. The Clinton family seems as entrenched as the Bush family in our nation's politics, which is rife with bribery (lobbying) and corruption. I fear Clinton will smile to our face while she fleeces us like sheep, whereas if Trump destroys us at least you will know it's coming and who is to blame.
2. He lies repeatedly. Politifact's profile on him says over half of Trump's statements that they checked were false. They even gave Trump's campaign their Lie of the Year award for 2015. And when Trump is called out on lying, he will either continue to lie or make excuses for lying.
3. His involvement in some seriously shady businesses. Trump University is a great example of this.
4. His belittling attitude towards women. From owning Miss USA/Universe to dismissing Megyn Kelly by suggesting she was having her period [source]; he seems to view women as only useful for sex. He also talked about punishing women for getting an abortion [source] (one of the few things he later back-tracked on.)
5. His racism. For example; comments about banning all muslims and the majority of Mexicans in the US being criminals.
Asking whether "you should support someone" is a tricky question. I think very few people find Trump remotely admirable. As the primary progressed, however, the calculus turned from whether he was your first choice to what was the benefit or drawback of supporting him.
I don't like blaming institutions a lot (mostly because institutions can't fix shitty people), but this definitely was a breakdown of the primary system. The candidates with broad appeal dropped out early (Bush, Rubio), while the candidates with less broad appeal but strong bases persisted. Faced with this choice, I think a lot of people went with the person they thought would win or had the best chance of winning. A lot of Republican leadership initially balked at the idea of nominating someone who wasn't a Republican, definitely isn't a Conservative and has a grab-bag of positions, but it seems that most of them have decided that it's better to support him than get Hillary.
You may support Trump because you just don't want Hillary. You may support Trump because you think he may be guided somewhat by Republican leadership. You may support Trump because you you would just rather a Republican be in office than a Democrat.
These are all "supporting Trump" without actually liking him.
As for Trump himself, "This is perhaps a result of him offering little of substance to be critiqued". Well I don't know what else you have to say. His views (as far as we can make out) are pretty much a grab bag. Against Free Trade. Hard on immigration. Hard on terrorism but soft on foreign intervention? I can't really peg down what group you'd exactly put him in. Some people have suggested Populist; I guess that makes him and Warren buddies. Apart from that, he's a pretty personally repellent person and seems to lack all tact, humility and is a petulant, thin-skinned namecaller. I suspect that's what turns most people off more than the actual policies.
I agree that the media coverage is a little dumb. I mean, there's enough stupidity to criticize. You can attack him on his own merits without having to call him a racist or say he's going to create concentration camps. I think that says a lot about the media.
Edit: After reading other posts in the thread: I don't think he's a racist. I think he's an arrogant, self-interested ass, but not a racist. In some ways, his character is at odds with racism. He sees people as tools to an end. You don't care what race your tool is. He doesn't have a home or a culture or an ideology that he cares about that might engender defensiveness leading to racism.
I think that in a lot of people's minds there is a taint of racism in not wanting illegal immigration or in vetting Muslim immigrants. They aren't really related, but it's there, so if you're REALLY against illegal immigration and REALLY intent on vetting Muslim immigrants, that must mean you are REALLY beyond a shadow of a doubt racist. Which is lazy thinking and distracts from thoughtful consideration of the issues.
This is teamliquid, almost everyone here is going to say yes because of how the media over exaggerates his words. I don't know if I support him, but I support him a hell of a lot more then fucking Hillary.
On July 24 2016 03:22 fluidrone wrote: The aforementioned presidential candidate you support (candidate for which I can't vote for or against myself, so it is easy to be clear cut).. he seems to spend a lot of time hating some people he has never met .., no? For a leader of the free world, does that not strike you as counter productive in 2016?
(I mean go and kill bad guys to make things better and basically shun everyone behind the ZardoZ wall.. yeah sounds kind of edgy to me for a "christian" in 2016)
By "hating people he's never met" you are referring to Muslims I assume? While I think it is a childish and stupid suggestion to ban Muslims from entering the US, I don't get the impression that he is motivated by bigotry and hatred. He may be guilty of encouraging those things in a portion of his followers, but I think that policy-wise it is pure empty rhetoric, just like his promises to fix the debt, restore the peace etc. He strikes me as too cunning and pragmatic to be another George W Bush who launches war on the Islamic world. I could be very wrong of course but these are my impressions.
Not really, I meant anyone he has to talk to to get elected, and the rest of the world doesnt even factor in apparently ?!
She would be mean if she was elected .. you'll see (i mean you won't see anything because she will lose to wallmart tarantutrump!).. ... if she had won, she'd be meannnnnn
My problem with Clinton is not that she's mean (I don't even think she is). What I don't like about her is her air of utter duplicity and cynicism. The Clinton family seems as entrenched as the Bush family in our nation's politics, which is rife with bribery (lobbying) and corruption. I fear Clinton will smile to our face while she fleeces us like sheep, whereas if Trump destroys us at least you will know it's coming and who is to blame.
i typed mean / you typed "utter duplicity and cynicism".. same
Asking whether "you should support someone" is a tricky question. I think very few people find Trump remotely admirable. As the primary progressed, however, the calculus turned from whether he was your first choice to what was the benefit or drawback of supporting him.
I don't like blaming institutions a lot (mostly because institutions can't fix shitty people), but this definitely was a breakdown of the primary system. The candidates with broad appeal dropped out early (Bush, Rubio), while the candidates with less broad appeal but strong bases persisted. Faced with this choice, I think a lot of people went with the person they thought would win or had the best chance of winning. A lot of Republican leadership initially balked at the idea of nominating someone who wasn't a Republican, definitely isn't a Conservative and has a grab-bag of positions, but it seems that most of them have decided that it's better to support him than get Hillary.
You may support Trump because you just don't want Hillary. You may support Trump because you think he may be guided somewhat by Republican leadership. You may support Trump because you you would just rather a Republican be in office than a Democrat.
These are all "supporting Trump" without actually liking him.
Yes I think "support" may be too strong a word... He just does seem to me like the best out of a terrible bunch. It might be a case of "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing. I greatly enjoyed the spectacle of the Republicans, the Democrats and the national media all trying their damnedest to stop Trump from being nominated. Perhaps that is the whole basis of my liking of him... I admit I'm very uninformed. I feel it is hard to be otherwise when all the competing sources of information are so full of deceit and propaganda.
I obviously don't support him, but maybe if he's elected something will snap in the collective minds of my fellow US citizens and things will actually start changing around here. If I had a guarantee that'd happen, I'd vote for Trump with no regrets.
The guy just says what people want. You say it in your post, he's making a lot of promises he probably can't keep and a lot he absolutely can't keep.
I don't think you're crazy for supporting him but a lot of crazies are supporting him. Such as climate change deniers and people who think the coal industry is the backbone of american hegemony. People who think Lucifer walks the earth and that Obama is the antichrist.
On July 24 2016 04:34 Melliflue wrote: I will give some examples of why Trump is so hated, and I am certain that others could provide many more reasons.
Thanks this is the kind of thing I was looking for.
I don't know, does this warrant the label of encouraging serious violence? Are there more examples? You don't have to hunt for them or anything I will take your word on it.
2. He lies repeatedly. Politifact's profile on him says over half of Trump's statements that they checked were false. They even gave Trump's campaign their Lie of the Year award for 2015. And when Trump is called out on lying, he will either continue to lie or make excuses for lying.
3. His involvement in some seriously shady businesses. Trump University is a great example of this.
I guess I'm so used to be lied to by politicians that his lying doesn't really raise my indignation. I'm more interested in actions than words, ie will he use his lies to implement unjust and oppressive policies, or are they just grabs for votes? As for being involved in shady business, this is true of Clinton as well, for example her cattle speculation and the email server thing, which people who work in that field seem to think was criminal negligence.
4. His belittling attitude towards women. From owning Miss USA/Universe to dismissing Megyn Kelly by suggesting she was having her period [source]; he seems to view women as only useful for sex. He also talked about punishing women for getting an abortion [source] (one of the few things he later back-tracked on.)
5. His racism. For example; comments about banning all muslims and the majority of Mexicans in the US being criminals.
That insinuation about Megyn Kelly was tactless, but on the other hand she was completely unprofessional, and I have little sympathy for journalists (on FOX news no less), who are some of the worst bullies and destroyers of rational discourse that exist. I think it's quite a stretch to say Trump views women as "only useful for sex" or that he hates women.
As for racism, I don't know... His claims to build a wall blocking Mexico and to ban all Muslims from the US seem calculated to pander to racists yes, but I can't see him seriously implementing either of these policies. I'd be more concerned with subtle, persuasive racism than these outbursts of idiocy. For 8 years we've had a biracial, tolerant president who says all the right things, yet race relations seem worse than ever. I can only see Clinton continuing this trend, whereas with Trump I feel there is at least a chance that he will make up with policy what he fails at with words.
On July 24 2016 04:58 blade55555 wrote: This is teamliquid, almost everyone here is going to say yes because of how the media over exaggerates his words. I don't know if I support him, but I support him a hell of a lot more then fucking Hillary.
On July 24 2016 04:58 blade55555 wrote: This is teamliquid, almost everyone here is going to say yes because of how the media over exaggerates his words. I don't know if I support him, but I support him a hell of a lot more then fucking Hillary.
This is exactly how I feel.
ditto, although I'll probably just "throw away my vote" on some independent.
Congress being totally dysfunctional throughout his tenure doesn't help. Basically if Obama took executive action on everything to total dictator level the world would be a better place, there aren't many previous presidents that are as intelligent and hard-working as he is especially the shitstorm he was elected in to already.
Trump makes for great TV though, I support his further push for a career in media but we don't need another useless blob sitting in the American CEO chair when our board of directors already is full of kids keen on shouting at each other and not get things done. And no you're not crazy just blinded by Trump's shiny orange hair and shouting antics.
Yes you are. Trump is an act, a populist, whos political "views" are not even remotely in line with reality. That's his style. He makes arguments that sound fine isolated, but never go beyond to reach actual real world contexts. Sure, most politicians do that. But is that a reason to vote? Fuck no. It's actually everything that's wrong with this world. People rather do stuff than thinking it through, so they vote based on petty arguments to feel good about themselves.
Now, what does Hillary do better? Not much, but you know, at least she doesn't plan to build a fucking wall. Also: who in christ's name spread the idea that you have to vote? If there's only idiots to vote for, gather some arguments or just leave it be. In a perfect world nobody would go to vote because it's a fucking shitshow.
This is all a bit abstract, so to answer a little closer to your question: Your basis is, that you think he will lead with a much firmer hand. That's all I'm reading in your statement. That's your basis for voting for the president of one of the leading countries on earth. If you do a little google search you find plenty of things wrong with Donald Trump, e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83
Sorry if I come across as a little aggressive, but recent events in the world (brexit) made me question the sanity not only of the politicians but the people as well. It's a flaw in the democratic system, sure, but man, saying yolo fingers crossed for the future of a country and it's global partners is not the way to go
On July 24 2016 08:08 Split. wrote: Now, what does Hillary do better? Not much, but you know, at least she doesn't plan to build a fucking wall. Also: who in christ's name spread the idea that you have to vote? If there's only idiots to vote for, gather some arguments or just leave it be. In a perfect world nobody would go to vote because it's a fucking shitshow.
To be honest Iʻm leaning toward not voting since I donʻt feel I have the experience and knowledge to choose a good candidate. But if I were forced to vote right now it would be for Trump, and thatʻs why I wanted to hear the arguments against him. I donʻt believe heʻs actually going to attempt to build a wall, but it seems like most people are concerned that he will.
Thanks for the link... I hadnʻt heard about a lot of that stuff and some of it is indeed troubling. There are several which donʻt seem like actual racism to me though, for example failing to disavow the KKK leader, or using the article "the" before referring to an ethnic group. In the first, I donʻt think itʻs a candidates responsibility to disavow every unsavory that wants to follow them, and the second seems more a want of manners and refinement than actual racism. The whole tone of the writer and the comments feels antagonistic to me... "if youʻre for Trump youʻre for hatred, racism and bigotry". There seems to be no middle ground, which is why Iʻm questioning my sanity and judgement.
Sorry if I come across as a little aggressive, but recent events in the world (brexit) made me question the sanity not only of the politicians but the people as well. It's a flaw in the democratic system, sure, but man, saying yolo fingers crossed for the future of a country and it's global partners is not the way to go.
On July 24 2016 07:42 Disregard wrote: Congress being totally dysfunctional throughout his tenure doesn't help. Basically if Obama took executive action on everything to total dictator level the world would be a better place, there aren't many previous presidents that are as intelligent and hard-working as he is especially the shitstorm he was elected in to already.
Trump makes for great TV though, I support his further push for a career in media but we don't need another useless blob sitting in the American CEO chair when our board of directors already is full of kids keen on shouting at each other and not get things done. And no you're not crazy just blinded by Trump's shiny orange hair and shouting antics.
You're actually the perfect person for one of my favorite arguments:
Since apparently you give no shits about good governance as long as your side wins, remember this- whatever powers you give to yourself may one day belong in the hands of your enemies.
On July 24 2016 07:42 Disregard wrote: Congress being totally dysfunctional throughout his tenure doesn't help. Basically if Obama took executive action on everything to total dictator level the world would be a better place, there aren't many previous presidents that are as intelligent and hard-working as he is especially the shitstorm he was elected in to already.
I agree about Obama and congress. That congress will continue to be dysfunctional though, which is why I wish someone would take the reins of the country out of their hands. No one who owes their career to their political party seems to have the courage to do it, no matter how smart or just they may be. Itʻs unfortunate that the first "independent" (kind of) to have a chance at the presidency happens to be someone like Trump, but at this point I think a lot of us in the US just want someone who is not a complete shill to their party.
Yes. He's a narcissistic, lunatic who's made a career out of spinning bullshit. Now he's just pandering to racism, disillusionment and fear whilst riding the wave of America's decline and people's frustration with the political system. His rhetoric seems to be completely without substance, and I feel like he'd be a dangerous wildcard in office, as we have no clue what he'll actually do. He's also the polar opposite of Sanders, who is the one that should have been in this race if America's so sick of the status quo. The Republican's just had such incredibly shitty candidates that Trump had an easier run.
The main problem I see is why elect a possible Hitler 2.0 just cause you're sick of two party politics? Agreed Hillary is terrible, but she actually seems like a sane, albeit corporate-sponsored shill, individual. Trump is at best insane, something I don't look for in a world leader.
On July 24 2016 05:37 Starlightsun wrote: Race relations seem worse than ever. I can only see Clinton continuing this trend, whereas with Trump I feel there is at least a chance that he will make up with policy what he fails at with words
... Clinton may continue the trend, though it's more systemic and a result of declining quality of life/education. Every indicator suggests Trump will just make it worse, his platform is literally divisiveness and the belittling/scapegoating of minorities.
I don't know why you're surprised that Congress is weak. You cheered every time the Judiciary and the Executive branch wrote the law or overrode it.
I know this is a difficult concept to grasp, but Congress, gasp, is a reflection of the people. If the people are divided, Congress will be divided. And democracy is not 51% of the people telling the other 49% of the people what to do.
And Sanders is not a break from the status quo. He's just a purer form of the Leftism of the Democrats. If there was going to be a break from the status quo and some sort of shift, it was going to come from the Republican party( maybe not this election, but it could have been a step), but then Trump barged in and fucked it all up.
On July 24 2016 07:42 Disregard wrote: Congress being totally dysfunctional throughout his tenure doesn't help. Basically if Obama took executive action on everything to total dictator level the world would be a better place, there aren't many previous presidents that are as intelligent and hard-working as he is especially the shitstorm he was elected in to already.
Trump makes for great TV though, I support his further push for a career in media but we don't need another useless blob sitting in the American CEO chair when our board of directors already is full of kids keen on shouting at each other and not get things done. And no you're not crazy just blinded by Trump's shiny orange hair and shouting antics.
You're actually the perfect person for one of my favorite arguments:
Since apparently you give no shits about good governance as long as your side wins, remember this- whatever powers you give to yourself may one day belong in the hands of your enemies.
Honestly the way I framed it might be biased but I personally don't care if it wasn't Obama because due to checks and balances when you have Congress and House of Representatives in such a state, no matter which side wins we all lose. Be it Obama, Hilary or your Trump, there is no change until there is reform in the seats.
On July 24 2016 09:46 Jerubaal wrote: I don't know why you're surprised that Congress is weak. You cheered every time the Judiciary and the Executive branch wrote the law or overrode it.
I know this is a difficult concept to grasp, but Congress, gasp, is a reflection of the people. If the people are divided, Congress will be divided. And democracy is not 51% of the people telling the other 49% of the people what to do.
And Sanders is not a break from the status quo. He's just a purer form of the Leftism of the Democrats. If there was going to be a break from the status quo and some sort of shift, it was going to come from the Republican party( maybe not this election, but it could have been a step), but then Trump barged in and fucked it all up.
Congress representative of the people is the biggest irony of all. People are always divided even in a utopia but apparently here majority of progression and reform turns a blind eye to conservatism and appeasement of a small minority especially the individual in the seat that supposedly represents the masses.
And with that, there are just too many people with the backwards mindset in the US, hopefully nature calls and removes them from society. Brutally honest and blunt but this is the only way.
On July 24 2016 04:58 blade55555 wrote: This is teamliquid, almost everyone here is going to say yes because of how the media over exaggerates his words. I don't know if I support him, but I support him a hell of a lot more then fucking Hillary.
That's not why TL dislikes Trump. Trump's message is one that only resonates with Americans, and is viewed poorly internationally. Even with completely even-handed media coverage (if such a thing were possible which it isn't) his message just doesn't resonate with the values of most non-Americans. From a purely demographic point of view it's obvious that on average TL thinks little of Trump.
On July 24 2016 04:46 Jerubaal wrote: Edit: After reading other posts in the thread: I don't think he's a racist. I think he's an arrogant, self-interested ass, but not a racist. In some ways, his character is at odds with racism. He sees people as tools to an end. You don't care what race your tool is. He doesn't have a home or a culture or an ideology that he cares about that might engender defensiveness leading to racism.
I think that in a lot of people's minds there is a taint of racism in not wanting illegal immigration or in vetting Muslim immigrants. They aren't really related, but it's there, so if you're REALLY against illegal immigration and REALLY intent on vetting Muslim immigrants, that must mean you are REALLY beyond a shadow of a doubt racist. Which is lazy thinking and distracts from thoughtful consideration of the issues.
Just saw this edit and I really agree with your assessment. Thanks for articulating it like that. The racism charge just doesn't seem to stick in my mind. He is undoubtedly manipulative, selfish, and arrogant, yes, but I think it is grasping to label him racist.
Personally the only thing i hope he does if he wins is get rid of Nafta, no reason the job i do pays so little, when before Nafta was passed and my company upped and moved they were making 2-3 more what i was making now. Shit is retarded
I'm not american, but "crazy" is a strong word, I think in the worst case you are either: naive, stupid, young, self-centered, a bit delusional ... probably well manipulated.
But you have the right to be any of those things, and a large portion the world is not better than you, and I do not really agree with Trump's idea, and I think people are being a bit brainwash with the whole "america great again", without thinking that maybe "not americans" (americans that don't fit the perfect stereotype) are a part of your contry AND also that america is still so powerful and involve in many things, whatever your governement decide to do is not only "america business" that could influence the world in many ways, and things could backfire.
Thus being said, you are not "crazy" (or maybe you are if we admit that almost half the world is crazy too), but I can really see why Trump is successfull.
I'm from France, our government thise time is "left/socialist", it's usually a huge battle between "left/rigt" and most of the times the "right" side is the majority (speaking for the last 25 years or so) BUT the "far right" party is like the 3rd or very close 4th of the country, and not so long ago they manage to get to the second turn of our election.
What I am trying to say is not "everyone is right", is that you are not downhill crazy and Trump's speech is nothing new to anyone and you can't blame everyone who wants to vote for him, if you had been living in the same context as them with the same idea, and if every time an idea was always put aside because "it's too extreme" but in the end every alternative seems not successful enough, you might be prone to vote for Trump.
I really think the problem is the dis-involvement of voters (in every "advanced" (some would say "decadent") country/nation).
We are what we eat, we are what we say, we are what we do!
Politicians are the result of this.. a trump or a hilary got there because people invest solely in their own immediate local political systems (because they HAVE to) and at the source (people who decide early to go into politics/idealists or other "figureheads") that could one day along the road become "presidential material") they are less and less people who decide to try, most decline the honor/chore to go do it, for the better good !?... Such people rise there (as electable material) because of YOUR dis-involvement, mine, .. most of the people.
It is all easy/lazy to say (quoting from a great R Pryor movie) "vote for none of the above"!
.. but that is not what this is about, is it? The problem is no one wants to sacrifice his/her own life's to the pursuit of a less cruel and vane world. We are busy laddering our own scale...
We are so free .. we have chosen to forget that this is something someone has to fight for!
After the GOP spent so much money, time and resources on trying to pin something on Hillary, and still failing, you kind of have to think that she's earned her nomination.
If she's elected, you know that either she hasn't been nearly as bad as some claim, or that she's very, very good. Deserving of her position, then.
Trump's tax plans would both disproportionately benefit the already wealthy and require a massive cut to federal programs to accordingly balance the budget. Additionally, he has signaled a willingness to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court who want to overrule Roe V. Wade, beef up police immunities, curtail 1st Amendment rights, and otherwise wreak havoc to our rule of law. That's all I really need to justify voting for Hillary.
On July 24 2016 03:18 Starlightsun wrote: For those who say yes, I would appreciate if you could elaborate, even briefly. It's interesting for me to hear the opinions of those outside the US especially.
he is a Populist and a racist. Basically, he is trying to catch votes of people who are frustrated with their political establishment, plays the racist card. (Wall to Mexico, no muslim immigrants)
And on top of that, he has zero constructive points, no real plan and no clear idea. Voting him is throwing your vote away. I'm very confident if he get's elected, he's gonna be seen as one of the worst US presidents by future generations.
So what is my liking based on? I think that I see him as someone willing to take action rather than trying to appease everyone. In my view this was Obamaʻs flaw... despite being highly intelligent and congenial, he struck me as ineffective because he was always being trampled by the legislature and the whims of public opinion.
Yes because you are just falling for buzzwords. There is nothing "substansial" about taking action. What matters is implementing the "correct" policies.
From my experience (related to everything in life), the more buzzwords someone uses, the less the person can actually offer of real value.
On July 24 2016 02:51 Starlightsun wrote: I think that I see him as someone willing to take action rather than trying to appease everyone. In my view this was Obamaʻs flaw... despite being highly intelligent and congenial, he struck me as ineffective because he was always being trampled by the legislature and the whims of public opinion. I believe Trump would lead with a much firmer hand, whether for good or ill I honestly canʻt tell. But that gamble seems better than the certainty of continued rule by the two parties, who spend all their time sabotaging each other and trying to score points.
I can understand this feeling. Western society is far from perfect. Whether it's wealth inequality, environmental issues, government corruption or shortcomings of the justice system, everyone can name things they want to be changed. And the thing is, the solution often seems easy and straightforward. Yet, somehow our leaders have failed to make the changes you want them to make. They have failed to make our society perfect. And that's frustrating.
It seems like it's this frustration that is the basis for your support of Trump. Clinton looks to be a continuation of current politics. A vote for her is a vote for the very thing that's frustrating you. Trump on the other hand, promises radical change. Something fresh. A possibility for real change. You don't know what's going to change or how, but at least there is a possibility that it won't be the same thing you've had enough of. When viewed in this light, I don't think your support of Trump is 'crazy' or illogical.
That however doesn't change the fact that I disagree with supporting Trump, which comes from my view on westen society. I'll try to explain my view with a little metaphor.
Imagine society as this huge complicated machine. For centuries people have slowly build this thing from the ground up. It's not perfect and needs permanent maintenance to function. Yet it's something special. And or all its shortcomings, it works. Now you are given the choice of how to make a certain improvement. One of your advisors tells you that you should think very carefully about how you make the neccessary adjustments to the machine, because all the parts of the machine are connected to all the other parts. Change one part and something else will be affected too. You are advised to carefully study the workings of the machine and consult all the experts before you make your decision. The process could take years. Your other advisor however tells you that you should ignore this lenghty process and that you should just wing it. Which advise would you follow?
On July 25 2016 06:28 Sr18 wrote: Imagine society as this huge complicated machine. For centuries people have slowly build this thing from the ground up. It's not perfect and needs permanent maintenance to function. Yet it's something special. And or all its shortcomings, it works. Now you are given the choice of how to make a certain improvement. One of your advisors tells you that you should think very carefully about how you make the neccessary adjustments to the machine, because all the parts of the machine are connected to all the other parts. Change one part and something else will be affected too. You are advised to carefully study the workings of the machine and consult all the experts before you make your decision. The process could take years. Your other advisor however tells you that you should ignore this lenghty process and that you should just wing it. Which advise would you follow?
That is a nice metaphor. It makes me look at the situation differently. You're right that my thoughts on this are mostly guided by frustration and impatience. As everyone else is pointing out, this is exactly what Trump is building his support on. It's nice to be able to step back and have some perspective, because the climate and coverage of the whole election here is incredibly polarized. People are treating Trump like he is either Hitler or Jesus, so it is hard to even talk about him to anyone.
no. a lot of people who are against him all the way are really ignorant and just swallows up what mainstream media says about him (which is mostly negative things). they fail to realize mainstream media is owned by corporations and establishment DNC and the elites who support Clinton
On July 24 2016 04:34 Melliflue wrote: I will give some examples of why Trump is so hated, and I am certain that others could provide many more reasons. ... 2. He lies repeatedly. Politifact's profile on him says over half of Trump's statements that they checked were false. They even gave Trump's campaign their Lie of the Year award for 2015. And when Trump is called out on lying, he will either continue to lie or make excuses for lying.
Lying is an integral part of the US political landscape. Basically everybody does it. I encourage you to spend 5 minutes listening to any US American political show on TV or radio and you will see that misrepresenting facts, twisting truths and plain lying is more or less the complete content of such shows. You can also take a look at Hillary Clinton's track record of "truthfulness", which is quite spotty as well. She has demonstrably switched her positions on many matters she has claimed to have always supported/rejected such as US military interventions and gay rights. Additionally, she has been far from truthful about everything concerning the "e-mail scandal" around her. None of the above is meant in defense of Trump, but I wonder why you would single him out when every major player on the political scene around him is doing the same and has been doing it for far longer than him.
3. His involvement in some seriously shady businesses. Trump University is a great example of this.
The e-mail scandal is not shady enough for you? The vast majority of congressmen and members of the House of Representatives has strong ties with major companies. Seeing how most of them are millionaires (and multi-millionaires) and how their wealth accumulation coincides with their terms as elected officials one has to wonder what kind of shady business goes behind the scenes (and often enough in front)... Yet again I wonder why you single out one person and neglect everybody else.
4. His belittling attitude towards women. From owning Miss USA/Universe to dismissing Megyn Kelly by suggesting she was having her period [source]; he seems to view women as only useful for sex. He also talked about punishing women for getting an abortion [source] (one of the few things he later back-tracked on.)
I have no clue what he has said about "Miss USA/Universe" but as far as Megyn Kelly is concerned there is a whole lot of reasons to dismiss her. She is a brain-dead and/or sellout puppet of the most influential propaganda machine in the US. Given the fact that for the average republican voter everything Fox News announces has the same significance as the gospel, it would have been a career ending move from him to phrase his dislike for them in the same words I did, so it was easier for him to go against the pretty face of the network than against the whole brainwashing apparatus in place. In the video you linked about him supporting punishment for abortion you can clearly see that he was forced by the moderator to say it. The video is from before he was the official candidate of the GOP. At that point in time, he may as well have quit the race right then and there if he had said that he is "pro-choice", because there is basically a 0% chance that a "pro-choice" supporter would win the republican nomination in the next 50 or so years.
5. His racism. For example; comments about banning all muslims and the majority of Mexicans in the US being criminals.
He knows his audience. Americans and especially republican voters are way more racist than anything you could have possibly ever encountered anywhere in Europe unless you are a member of some neo-Nazi cell. "Racist" and politically incorrect comments are what put him on the political landscape and what elevated him above his opponents. As the good populist and demagogue he is, he realized this and uses it to its full extent.
Trump has proven that he will say anything to increase his chances at getting elected. In this, he is just the same as Hillary Clinton, both have shown to flip-flop on issues depending on how the wind blows currently (Clinton of course with a much longer track record of doing so). The only difference is that Clinton has gone the traditional way of saying what currently is widely considered accepted in her electoral base and then throwing a shitload of money in order to make herself heard better than her opponents while Trump has opted for the special strategy of being more outrageous than the other contestants (which was a tall order given the other nutjobs running against him for the republican spot).
@the OP
You are not crazy for supporting Trump. But you are obviously very naive judging by what you say:
"I think that I see him as someone willing to take action..." There is literally nothing to base this claim on. The only thing he has done so far is talk.
"...rather than trying to appease everyone." He may be prone to saying outrageous things, but he has very much tried to cater to the situation and his electorate to ensure that he increases his chances to get elected. Take a look at his speeches at different points during his campaign. Besides a few catch phrases that have remained the same, it is like listening to different people. The most notable thing is that the overall tone and content of his speeches has been changing in a very strategical manner depending on the current situation of the race. If anything Trump has proven that he will do anything to get elected and you can very much expect him to do everything he can to get a second term.
"I believe Trump would lead with a much firmer hand..." Yet another expectation with 0 evidence in support. The likelihood for this to come true is currently as high as the opposite. Additionally, in the political system of the USA he will need the support of the congress and the house of representatives to achieve anything, which requires much more than a "firm" hand, unless of course you expect him to become Supreme Leader and start a dynasty akin to North Korea's Kims.
On July 25 2016 11:16 parkufarku wrote: no. a lot of people who are against him all the way are really ignorant and just swallows up what mainstream media says about him (which is mostly negative things). they fail to realize mainstream media is owned by corporations and establishment DNC and the elites who support Clinton
Trump's idiocy is self-evident; you can realize his bigotry and ignorance based off what he says, without even needing news corporations to interpret it.
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families"
As someone who despises Hillary, I'm still stunned that anyone remotely literate can think Trump is a legitimate option for president.
No, you are not crazy and do not feel intimidated by this forum - the political spectrum here is basically a one-dimensional leftist, politically correct, neo-liberal one.
On July 25 2016 20:23 SoSexy wrote: No, you are not crazy and do not feel intimidated by this forum - the political spectrum here is basically a one-dimensional leftist, politically correct, neo-liberal one.
Being politically correct is not the same as calling out racist, misogynistic, bigoted behavior.
On July 25 2016 20:23 SoSexy wrote: No, you are not crazy and do not feel intimidated by this forum - the political spectrum here is basically a one-dimensional leftist, politically correct, neo-liberal one.
Being politically correct is not the same as calling out racist, misogynistic, bigoted behavior.
On July 25 2016 20:23 SoSexy wrote: No, you are not crazy and do not feel intimidated by this forum - the political spectrum here is basically a one-dimensional leftist, politically correct, neo-liberal one.
Being politically correct is not the same as calling out racist, misogynistic, bigoted behavior.
You basically just confirmed my post.
My political views are not the same as everyone else's on this forum (in the US Politics thread, for example, we see plenty of conservatives and others), and my post was a correction to yours... I strongly dislike exaggerated political correctness too, but merely being politically incorrect and being a full-out bigot are not the same thing.
I still dont even understand why anyone would support Trump. Well, I can see the reasoning people put forward, but it is all wishful thinking, disjoint with reality. People who vote for Trump project their wishes onto a person, who in fact is nothing like those wishes. If you want to see that, ignore second-hand information and just listen to a couple of interviews -those are much better than prepared speeches. You might notice that he is just really stupid.
There is a strong wave of "down with politicians" sentiment also in europe, leading to popularity of people "outside politics" who will bring "change".it very consistently doesnt work, they either get nothing done, get swept by existing politics, or just plainly steel money and power for their business.
On July 24 2016 04:34 Melliflue wrote: I will give some examples of why Trump is so hated, and I am certain that others could provide many more reasons. ... 2. He lies repeatedly. Politifact's profile on him says over half of Trump's statements that they checked were false. They even gave Trump's campaign their Lie of the Year award for 2015. And when Trump is called out on lying, he will either continue to lie or make excuses for lying.
Lying is an integral part of the US political landscape. Basically everybody does it. I encourage you to spend 5 minutes listening to any US American political show on TV or radio and you will see that misrepresenting facts, twisting truths and plain lying is more or less the complete content of such shows. You can also take a look at Hillary Clinton's track record of "truthfulness", which is quite spotty as well. She has demonstrably switched her positions on many matters she has claimed to have always supported/rejected such as US military interventions and gay rights. Additionally, she has been far from truthful about everything concerning the "e-mail scandal" around her. None of the above is meant in defense of Trump, but I wonder why you would single him out when every major player on the political scene around him is doing the same and has been doing it for far longer than him.
He has lied much more than other politicians. Politifact give each claim it checks a rank from 'True' to 'Pants on Fire'. Here are the overall number (and percentage) of 'False' and 'Pants on Fire' statements from several major politicians; Donald Trump 111 (55%) Hilary Clinton 30 (16%) Barack Obama 80 (14%) Bernie Sanders 12 (12%) Paul Ryan 8 (13%) Marco Rubio 25 (18%) Ted Cruz 39 (34%)
Donald Trump objectively lies much more than other politicians.
3. His involvement in some seriously shady businesses. Trump University is a great example of this.
The e-mail scandal is not shady enough for you? The vast majority of congressmen and members of the House of Representatives has strong ties with major companies. Seeing how most of them are millionaires (and multi-millionaires) and how their wealth accumulation coincides with their terms as elected officials one has to wonder what kind of shady business goes behind the scenes (and often enough in front)... Yet again I wonder why you single out one person and neglect everybody else.
Hilary's e-mail scandal makes her seem arrogant, that she believed the rules should be bent for her. Trump University was a scam that took money from normal citizens. Hilary's history with cattle futures is dodgy but there is nothing concrete we can say about that; it just looks very suspicious. Trump University is currently fighting legal cases, including for fraud, because the university massively mislead what it was offering.
4. His belittling attitude towards women. From owning Miss USA/Universe to dismissing Megyn Kelly by suggesting she was having her period [source]; he seems to view women as only useful for sex. He also talked about punishing women for getting an abortion [source] (one of the few things he later back-tracked on.)
I have no clue what he has said about "Miss USA/Universe"
He doesn't have to say anything about it. He owned the whole thing for 20 years. I think that we can assume he was a supporter of it. If he had any moral objection against it then he could have stopped it.
but as far as Megyn Kelly is concerned there is a whole lot of reasons to dismiss her. She is a brain-dead and/or sellout puppet of the most influential propaganda machine in the US. Given the fact that for the average republican voter everything Fox News announces has the same significance as the gospel, it would have been a career ending move from him to phrase his dislike for them in the same words I did, so it was easier for him to go against the pretty face of the network than against the whole brainwashing apparatus in place.
If he wanted to dismiss Megyn Kelly then he could have done so without suggesting she was on her period. He had already said that he did not respect her as a journalist earlier in that interview and he could have said she was only trying to embarrass him or said many other things. However, there was no need to say what he did.
In the video you linked about him supporting punishment for abortion you can clearly see that he was forced by the moderator to say it. The video is from before he was the official candidate of the GOP. At that point in time, he may as well have quit the race right then and there if he had said that he is "pro-choice", because there is basically a 0% chance that a "pro-choice" supporter would win the republican nomination in the next 50 or so years.
He was forced by the moderator to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the questions, "Do you believe in punishment for abortion?" and "for the woman?" Nobody forced Trump to say "There has to be some form of punishment" and "yes". The moderator was doing his job by not letting Trump avoid the question, because a lot of people wanted to know what Trump's attitude towards abortion was.
On July 24 2016 04:34 Melliflue wrote: I will give some examples of why Trump is so hated, and I am certain that others could provide many more reasons.
Thanks this is the kind of thing I was looking for.
I don't know, does this warrant the label of encouraging serious violence? Are there more examples? You don't have to hunt for them or anything I will take your word on it.
4. His belittling attitude towards women. From owning Miss USA/Universe to dismissing Megyn Kelly by suggesting she was having her period [source]; he seems to view women as only useful for sex. He also talked about punishing women for getting an abortion [source] (one of the few things he later back-tracked on.)
5. His racism. For example; comments about banning all muslims and the majority of Mexicans in the US being criminals.
That insinuation about Megyn Kelly was tactless, but on the other hand she was completely unprofessional, and I have little sympathy for journalists (on FOX news no less), who are some of the worst bullies and destroyers of rational discourse that exist. I think it's quite a stretch to say Trump views women as "only useful for sex" or that he hates women.
Kelly was quoting Trump back to him. I think many people want to know, and have the right to know, what a (potential) presidential candidate thinks of women. I see nothing wrong with her question. I wish candidates were more often challenged like that.
Spend a bit of time with google to find out some of the other things he has said about women or how he has treated them. It would be good for you to do a bit of research on Trump on your own, even if it just about one topic. I would also point you in the direction of his attitude towards journalists as another thing you should know about him.
But overall, if you support Donald Trump then you will spend a lot of time defending him. Nobody should have to spend so much effort defending a presidential candidate from accusations of being a misogynistic, supercilious, violent, manipulative, lying, racist, litigious conman.
On July 26 2016 11:00 Rathwirt wrote: I'm voting for him because yolo. We know exactly what we'll get with Clinton. Trump will be interesting, at least.
On July 26 2016 11:00 Rathwirt wrote: I'm voting for him because yolo. We know exactly what we'll get with Clinton. Trump will be interesting, at least.
There's plenty of interesting shit to watch, politics isn't meant to be about entertainment. If you don't care then don't vote. It's like hiring some loud-mouthed drunk to drive you home (cos yolo) instead of a boring company driver who's sober and will go the safe, standard route? It'll be interesting at least. Except it's not a car, it's the entire country.
I heard some political guy say something (He might have even been a liberal democrat) about voting for trump because of the way the congress and all that shit will go with hillary in office versus trump. A lot of those people are pretty old, and they have YUGE terms of office, so depending on who is in office at the time is much more important for the long term than their worthless short term as head puppet.
Ie; trump doesnt really matter much more than hillary for the 4-8 years they would be in office, but whoever is in office during that time mold congress for the next few decades or something.
That being said, I have been able to accurately predict like as soon as the leading candidates start forming a year or so before they get the parties nomination, who will win the presidential election for like the last 12 years or so. It's legitimately super clear and obvious to me.
I don't know if it's all gerrymandering, voter fraud, rigged machines, and all that conspiracy shit, or just simply that I can tell based on the little to medium amount of political news I take in and assume that the average dumb american voter uses to cast their vote. Like I have my finger on the pulse of the american citizens or something. Anyway, It's gonna be President Trump. And I already bet my friend 100$ like 6 months ago.
On July 26 2016 11:00 Rathwirt wrote: I'm voting for him because yolo. We know exactly what we'll get with Clinton. Trump will be interesting, at least.
There's plenty of interesting shit to watch, politics isn't meant to be about entertainment. If you don't care then don't vote. It's like hiring some loud-mouthed drunk to drive you home (cos yolo) instead of a boring company driver who's sober and will go the safe, standard route? It'll be interesting at least. Except it's not a car, it's the entire country.
What are you talking about, this car is going to be GREAT again.
Hillaries people constantly set themselves up for this kinda shit too, it's definitely entertaining. http://i.imgur.com/B7iIPWG.jpg
On July 26 2016 11:00 Rathwirt wrote: I'm voting for him because yolo. We know exactly what we'll get with Clinton. Trump will be interesting, at least.
This is what we'll get with Clinton:
"If Trump is elected, all that is gone."
Really now?
The RNC and Trump oppose these and Republicans have explicitly tried repealing these at one level or another, yeah.
The next president will almost certainly get to appoint at least 2 if not 3 SC justices, and wreak havoc means: overturn Roe v. Wade, make habeas petitions even harder to grant, increase state sovereign immunity, make 1983 actions against the government harder to bring, beef up police immunities, curtail 1st Amendment rights under libel/slander law, potentially overturn Obergefell, and the list goes on.
I'm sure you asked the same question when they took away your ban hammer. Sometimes, only self-reflection will do, and asking to be spoon-fed information that accords with your insipid style of thinking begets only an understanding as to how one might open their mouth widest.
On July 26 2016 11:00 Rathwirt wrote: I'm voting for him because yolo. We know exactly what we'll get with Clinton. Trump will be interesting, at least.
This is what we'll get with Clinton:
Wow is that really what you think? I mean I am not surprised, but if you think Hillary will actually be decent in anyway, I think you'll be in for a shock when she becomes president. She'll be far worse then Trump and I think many recent events have shown how corrupt she is as well. (As a note, I think both candidates suck as well as both parties.)
On July 26 2016 11:00 Rathwirt wrote: I'm voting for him because yolo. We know exactly what we'll get with Clinton. Trump will be interesting, at least.
This is what we'll get with Clinton:
Wow is that really what you think? I mean I am not surprised, but if you think Hillary will actually be decent in anyway, I think you'll be in for a shock when she becomes president. She'll be far worse then Trump and I think many recent events have shown how corrupt she is as well. (As a note, I think both candidates suck as well as both parties.)
While Hillary is far from perfect, I think there is zero reason to think that Hillary would be worse than Trump.
Ok let's get this out of the way: Hillary Clinton is a political animal of the kind we all think we know well and love to disdain. In the context of present day populist anti-establishment views, her holding office may be a bitter pill to swallow when your appetite for change outweighs your fear of change, in the most generic non-partisan sense. But this has nothing to do with her character as a person. She's just a career politician, who, one might point out, has miraculously survived, even thrived, in spite of consistently being at the edge of what's new in popular sentiment. If you have a problem with that, grow up, and start learning how to play the cards you're dealt given the rules of the game.
Now, the disqualifications of the other major party candidate are of a completely different order. Trump is literally unfit for office. It's an offense to decent people everywhere that he was ever even in the running. He is a vapid egoist who has no relation to the world outside his coddled life. We live in a world of nuclear detente (I guess everyone forgot about that since it's been half a generation??) on top of the usual workaday tribal aggressive tendencies and macro politicoeconomic resource-cornering, staring down the barrel of a climate change rocket launcher with half us throwing baseballs at the launch button. We've already undergone irreversible species and ecosystem loss in the last few hundred years comparable to mass extinction events from earth's geologically measured history. In this situation, the last thing we need is a destabilizing force in the most relevant global political entity and de facto world economic anchor, the united states. And that's putting it lightly. Saying that you want to shake things up is like saying "splicing ropes hasn't been getting our sinking ship anywhere, let's burn it". And that's literally all you could say, since there are zero substantive proposals you'd be voting for. It's all vacuum and social manipulation. The best thing a Trump presidency could hope for is total impotence. If it accomplished anything it'd be the destruction of previous generations' work.
If you can't see this then you are delusional or too emotionally and intellectually immature to operate in the 21st century. You are not being clever by making a cynical bet against status quo systems of government. You are gambling with the planet's future, on a tip from your crazy uncle's chain email.
@Barrin, if your pedantic bent is unsatisfied with this, give Sam Harris a go, def your style:
On July 26 2016 08:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yes. Melliflue just gave a whole bunch of reasons why, as have many other people, both in this thread and in the US Politics thread
I strongly disagree. Melliflue gave a prime example of the common American mindset about politics of "my team is always good and right, the other is always destructive and wrong". To prove his point he mostly used subjective evaluation of actions and statements based solely on his own beliefs completely disregarding any other possible or likely reasons. To round it off he displayed to us how people's opinions can be easily swayed by utter bullshit as long as it is presented in a semi-fancy way and reinforces a person's already pre-existing bias:
On July 24 2016 04:34 Melliflue wrote: I will give some examples of why Trump is so hated, and I am certain that others could provide many more reasons. ... 2. He lies repeatedly. Politifact's profile on him says over half of Trump's statements that they checked were false. They even gave Trump's campaign their Lie of the Year award for 2015. And when Trump is called out on lying, he will either continue to lie or make excuses for lying.
Lying is an integral part of the US political landscape. Basically everybody does it. I encourage you to spend 5 minutes listening to any US American political show on TV or radio and you will see that misrepresenting facts, twisting truths and plain lying is more or less the complete content of such shows. You can also take a look at Hillary Clinton's track record of "truthfulness", which is quite spotty as well. She has demonstrably switched her positions on many matters she has claimed to have always supported/rejected such as US military interventions and gay rights. Additionally, she has been far from truthful about everything concerning the "e-mail scandal" around her. None of the above is meant in defense of Trump, but I wonder why you would single him out when every major player on the political scene around him is doing the same and has been doing it for far longer than him.
He has lied much more than other politicians. Politifact give each claim it checks a rank from 'True' to 'Pants on Fire'. Here are the overall number (and percentage) of 'False' and 'Pants on Fire' statements from several major politicians; Donald Trump 111 (55%) Hilary Clinton 30 (16%) Barack Obama 80 (14%) Bernie Sanders 12 (12%) Paul Ryan 8 (13%) Marco Rubio 25 (18%) Ted Cruz 39 (34%)
Donald Trump objectively lies much more than other politicians.
How can you possibly use this with a straight face as a source? Is this supposed to mean that Trump has made only 200 statements since he started running for president? Gee, I know that his political career has been very short so far, but I am pretty sure every single one of his speeches includes at least a 100 statements, never mind interviews he has given or public discussions he has taken part in. Or are you telling me that they have evaluated only 200 statements of him because 95+% of the time he speaks in imperatives and rhetorical questions? This site also seems to suggest that Clinton has been a very quiet gal during her 8 years as a senator and 4 years as the Secretary of State considering that there are less than 200 quotes from here. If you bothered to go through the list of false statements (e.g. for Trump and Clinton) you would have noticed that there are quite a few repetitions, several obvious slips of tongue (despite the site's claim that they do not evaluate those), and at least a few statements that beg for context or explanation on how they are relevant. At the end of the day, it does not really matter if there are 111 false statements of Trump or only 80. There are far more than enough quotes that are so absurd and outrageous that any sane person would get a headache. But the fact of the matter is: The only objective statement based on this site about a comparison between the people included is that Trump is quoted disproportionately more than anybody else. In less than a year Trump has been evaluated 200 times. Obama having two terms as president clocks in only ~70/year. Clinton has been in two presidential races and has 12 years as a top government official, but has less quotes than Trump and about 15 quotes/year (for 12 years). Trump has more "true" and "mostly true" statements in less than one year than almost all of the people you compare him with get on average per year (counting ALL their statements from "true" to "pants on fire"). Using this site as a metric on the frequency of lies of different politicians is absurd considering how incomplete their statement collection is. The fact that they seem unable to filter out repetitions and slips of tongue despite the relatively tiny amount of quotes they have as well as their weird bias (intentional or not) are simply more reasons to take any simple conclusions based on their collection with more than just a grain of salt.
3. His involvement in some seriously shady businesses. Trump University is a great example of this.
The e-mail scandal is not shady enough for you? The vast majority of congressmen and members of the House of Representatives has strong ties with major companies. Seeing how most of them are millionaires (and multi-millionaires) and how their wealth accumulation coincides with their terms as elected officials one has to wonder what kind of shady business goes behind the scenes (and often enough in front)... Yet again I wonder why you single out one person and neglect everybody else.
Hilary's e-mail scandal makes her seem arrogant, that she believed the rules should be bent for her. Trump University was a scam that took money from normal citizens. Hilary's history with cattle futures is dodgy but there is nothing concrete we can say about that; it just looks very suspicious. Trump University is currently fighting legal cases, including for fraud, because the university massively mislead what it was offering.
We seem to weigh differently these people's "flaws". I, for my part, could hardly have any lower opinion of either of the presidential candidates. I make little difference between a power-hungry, money-grabbing turncoat and another.
4. His belittling attitude towards women. From owning Miss USA/Universe to dismissing Megyn Kelly by suggesting she was having her period [source]; he seems to view women as only useful for sex. He also talked about punishing women for getting an abortion [source] (one of the few things he later back-tracked on.)
I have no clue what he has said about "Miss USA/Universe"
He doesn't have to say anything about it. He owned the whole thing for 20 years. I think that we can assume he was a supporter of it. If he had any moral objection against it then he could have stopped it.
Oh, apparently I did not understand what you meant. Any Miss pageant is a mind-numbing waste of time, but I do not understand how you could possibly have any moral objection against it. Trump just managed to make some money out of willing participants and an audience with very low standards as to what constitutes entertainment.
but as far as Megyn Kelly is concerned there is a whole lot of reasons to dismiss her. She is a brain-dead and/or sellout puppet of the most influential propaganda machine in the US. Given the fact that for the average republican voter everything Fox News announces has the same significance as the gospel, it would have been a career ending move from him to phrase his dislike for them in the same words I did, so it was easier for him to go against the pretty face of the network than against the whole brainwashing apparatus in place.
If he wanted to dismiss Megyn Kelly then he could have done so without suggesting she was on her period. He had already said that he did not respect her as a journalist earlier in that interview and he could have said she was only trying to embarrass him or said many other things. However, there was no need to say what he did.
Megyn Kelly is an integral part of something that actively divides the American society. Trump's words were neither smart nor tactful. However, him saying them to some low-life pseudo-journalist is by no means proof of misogyny.
In the video you linked about him supporting punishment for abortion you can clearly see that he was forced by the moderator to say it. The video is from before he was the official candidate of the GOP. At that point in time, he may as well have quit the race right then and there if he had said that he is "pro-choice", because there is basically a 0% chance that a "pro-choice" supporter would win the republican nomination in the next 50 or so years.
He was forced by the moderator to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the questions, "Do you believe in punishment for abortion?" and "for the woman?" Nobody forced Trump to say "There has to be some form of punishment" and "yes". The moderator was doing his job by not letting Trump avoid the question, because a lot of people wanted to know what Trump's attitude towards abortion was.
Of course, the moderator was doing his job and did it well. You can clearly see that Trump was trying to avoid a concrete answer, but the moderator dug deeper until he managed to squeeze out a complete answer from Trump. The fact of the matter is that at that point answering "no" may have ended Trump's chances of becoming presidential candidate. It's a stupid position, but it is the vastly predominant position of the republican electorate. There was no other option but to say "yes" in this interview. If anything, the way Trump was trying to avoid the question would hint that he lacks the clear cut "pro-life" sentiments that are common amongst republicans. This, of course, is a mere speculation. Point is: At that point in time, there was no other option but saying "yes".
On July 24 2016 04:34 Melliflue wrote: I will give some examples of why Trump is so hated, and I am certain that others could provide many more reasons.
Thanks this is the kind of thing I was looking for.
I don't know, does this warrant the label of encouraging serious violence? Are there more examples? You don't have to hunt for them or anything I will take your word on it.
There is no arguing that what he has said there is plain stupid. No sane person could try to defend this.
But it may be worth considering: How relevant would this trait of his be if he were the president? I cannot imagine him making weekly comments encouraging people to brawl on the streets. Would his "violent" side have any impact on the US? It may or it may not. Either way, the linked statements are a decent testament to him being a moron.
As far as violence is concerned, there is another point worth mentioning. Trump claims to want to follow far less aggressive foreign politics. Less US military interventions abroad would directly translate in less American combat deaths. On the other hand, Hillary has proven to fully support the military industrial complex and have little to no moral doubts to support questionable military operations...
4. His belittling attitude towards women. From owning Miss USA/Universe to dismissing Megyn Kelly by suggesting she was having her period [source]; he seems to view women as only useful for sex. He also talked about punishing women for getting an abortion [source] (one of the few things he later back-tracked on.)
5. His racism. For example; comments about banning all muslims and the majority of Mexicans in the US being criminals.
That insinuation about Megyn Kelly was tactless, but on the other hand she was completely unprofessional, and I have little sympathy for journalists (on FOX news no less), who are some of the worst bullies and destroyers of rational discourse that exist. I think it's quite a stretch to say Trump views women as "only useful for sex" or that he hates women.
Kelly was quoting Trump back to him. I think many people want to know, and have the right to know, what a (potential) presidential candidate thinks of women. I see nothing wrong with her question. I wish candidates were more often challenged like that.
Spend a bit of time with google to find out some of the other things he has said about women or how he has treated them. It would be good for you to do a bit of research on Trump on your own, even if it just about one topic. I would also point you in the direction of his attitude towards journalists as another thing you should know about him.
But overall, if you support Donald Trump then you will spend a lot of time defending him.
Nobody should have to spend so much effort defending a presidential candidate from accusations of being a misogynistic, supercilious, violent, manipulative, lying, racist, litigious conman.
No other presidential candidate has been attacked as much as him ever since I can remember. I am not really following US media, but the media in Western Europe has been all over him for every possible thing. Obviously, there is a whole lot of reasons as you have pointed out and given plenty of examples. However, a stunning amount of the anti-Trump articles around here have outrageous titles, but somehow you are left wondering what exactly the scandal was supposed to be after reading them. Since journalists around here are known to be prone of copying US media, I would not be surprised if the US had a disproportionate amount of anti-Trump articles just for the sake of writing something against him without really having any notable content.
Anyway, your description of Trump in the last sentence is perfectly fitting to quite a few notable republicans and certainly not far off for Hillary, either.
The fact you are even thinking about us politics this way actually stuns me. The US has had a two party system which uses puppets for over 60 years. The reality is that mostly you are voting for a party. Yeah the president may appoint some people that are along party lines, but its all a big party system. Both candidates are superpact candidates who will trade votes for favors. Republican/Democrat candidates both are mildly radicalized, except a few polarizing individuals and media propagandists. These terms they use like conservative and liberal really just mean that they don't value the populations opinion as much as a few ideals. The concern over trump is whether he can quell freedomworks, or whether they dominate him. The republican party has been divided for a while. Trump winning the electoral vote means that the post reaganism groups are winning over the general republican view. The business code that trump is attempting to push is basically based around how people abuse the tax system. The way that US people abuse tax codes is make a bunch of small businesses instead of one larger organization. This put them in much lower tax brackets. Business taxes are pretty high in the us while individual taxes are very low. Trump understands a lot better how businesses evade taxes with a bunch of loopholes. That is the platform message overall.
Another issue i have is in relations. I don't know that trump is good for us relations, but Hillary is also a woman which is condemned by the muslim world where we are having the majority of our diplomatic relation problems. It doesn't matter so much since Muslim countries do not have an adaptive legal system, but rather a party driven one which uses religion to kill people from other parties and maintain power. I don't really think if it was bernie or hillary you get to different of a result. Similarly if it was trump or carson i think the result is pretty similar. The only superpuppet candidate this year that is legitimately crazy is the freedomworks shut down the government like mad and do it in the name of god Ted Cruz. Other than that, just look at the party history and don't focus so much on candidates. Your family probably doesn't have anyone who works in politics.
More to the point: Is it only a cause not to vote for Trump, or are you also implying that it is a cause to vote for Hillary?
So are you trying to make the point that because we can't predict any specific thing with certainty that therefore we can't make good guesses about anything? We can't know that Trump will appoint 3 Supreme Court justices who join a supermajority that overturns all those precedents so that possibility/probability is not sufficient reason to vote against Trump? I just don't get what you are trying to do here.
More to the point: do you think that if Trump were elected he would appoint judges who would overturn precedents like those farv listed? or not?
Trump is like a meepo lastpicker into an all-carry lineup, who then proceeds to afk farm ancients and rushes moon shard only to consume it immediately while flaming his supports for not warding.
I love Trump. However I think its a really bad idea for him to be a president but if i was forced to choose between him and Hillary I would choose Trump a million times over her.
On July 27 2016 17:56 Skynx wrote: Trump is like a meepo lastpicker into an all-carry lineup, who then proceeds to afk farm ancients and rushes moon shard only to consume it immediately while flaming his supports for not warding.
This....wow, this....this explains it all so clearly. This explains everything a thousand times better than a political essay. Thank you, my friend.
On July 24 2016 02:51 Starlightsun wrote: It seems that everyone who I like and respect not only dislikes Donald Trump but hates him passionately. My family are pretty smart and easy going people, but all of the sudden with Trump they show extreme disgust and revel in the most petty gossip against him. I hear all over the media and in conversation how only stupid and bigoted people could possibly support him. And yet to me, when looking at the whole field of candidates we were offered, he honestly seems the most appealing. In real life Iʻm actually afraid to say this to anyone for fear of being ostracized.
The constant criticisms of him often strike me as petty, irrelevant and gossipy. This is perhaps a result of him offering little of substance to be critiqued. That is my main gripe with him actually - how vague he is on details. All he is offering are big promises that he will not deliver on, but I expect no less from any politician.
So what is my liking based on? I think that I see him as someone willing to take action rather than trying to appease everyone. In my view this was Obamaʻs flaw... despite being highly intelligent and congenial, he struck me as ineffective because he was always being trampled by the legislature and the whims of public opinion. I believe Trump would lead with a much firmer hand, whether for good or ill I honestly canʻt tell. But that gamble seems better than the certainty of continued rule by the two parties, who spend all their time sabotaging each other and trying to score points. Trump is the only candidate that strikes me as an individual rather than a cog in the two party machine.
There's nothing wrong with supporting Trump. People who think he's going to blow up the world are unhinged. People who think he's Hitler are emotional children. You can't take those people seriously on the subject of the election because they don't even respect themselves enough not to become such dupes. You're not the clueless victim of a used car salesman in what was otherwise a political sea of George Washingtons and Abe Lincolns. All candidates have strengths and weaknesses. Just ignore the media-fed hysteria people have. I've never seen more flagrant dishonesty, spin, and pure bullshit produced by the media just to get their #1 priority, ratings.
On July 24 2016 02:51 Starlightsun wrote: It seems that everyone who I like and respect not only dislikes Donald Trump but hates him passionately. My family are pretty smart and easy going people, but all of the sudden with Trump they show extreme disgust and revel in the most petty gossip against him. I hear all over the media and in conversation how only stupid and bigoted people could possibly support him. And yet to me, when looking at the whole field of candidates we were offered, he honestly seems the most appealing. In real life Iʻm actually afraid to say this to anyone for fear of being ostracized.
The constant criticisms of him often strike me as petty, irrelevant and gossipy. This is perhaps a result of him offering little of substance to be critiqued. That is my main gripe with him actually - how vague he is on details. All he is offering are big promises that he will not deliver on, but I expect no less from any politician.
So what is my liking based on? I think that I see him as someone willing to take action rather than trying to appease everyone. In my view this was Obamaʻs flaw... despite being highly intelligent and congenial, he struck me as ineffective because he was always being trampled by the legislature and the whims of public opinion. I believe Trump would lead with a much firmer hand, whether for good or ill I honestly canʻt tell. But that gamble seems better than the certainty of continued rule by the two parties, who spend all their time sabotaging each other and trying to score points. Trump is the only candidate that strikes me as an individual rather than a cog in the two party machine.
There's nothing wrong with supporting Trump. People who think he's going to blow up the world are unhinged. People who think he's Hitler are emotional children. You can't take those people seriously on the subject of the election because they don't even respect themselves enough not to become such dupes. You're not the clueless victim of a used car salesman in what was otherwise a political sea of George Washingtons and Abe Lincolns. All candidates have strengths and weaknesses. Just ignore the media-fed hysteria people have. I've never seen more flagrant dishonesty, spin, and pure bullshit produced by the media just to get their #1 priority, ratings.
What is your plan Stan? What are you hoping is going to happen?
I support trump as a conservative and I think his policies will generally have a positive influence on the country. I am uncomfortable with Trumps overall tone and several of his policies(Particularly free trade and his flip flops on abortion) but I do think the media overplays things.
Trump has released a solid list of people he would put on the supreme court and I think this alone is enough to support him as the next president is likely going to appoint 2 if not 3 justices.
For me there are many other political reasons to support trump as well but I won't go into them.
The most important thing I would like to point out is how emotional our political process seems to have become, people seem to value emotion and "feeling" over logical analysis. I don't agree with the liberal policies of Hillary, Obama and the democrat party but I do understand and respect why many people hold those views. By the same token I feel people need to realize that many of Trumps policies are the result of sober, logical reasoning, even if you may disagree with them at least you should respect differences of opinion, too often on the internet I see Hurr durr Trump Nazi!!! Trump literally the worst human being on the face of the planet (To be fair similar things about Hillary).
Lets try to have a reasonably discussion of policy and the repercussions of policy if implemented rather than emotional sensationalism.
On July 28 2016 03:18 SlammerIV wrote: By the same token I feel people need to realize that many of Trumps policies are the result of sober, logical reasoning, even if you may disagree with them at least you should respect differences of opinion, too often on the internet I see Hurr durr Trump Nazi!!!
Lets try to have a reasonably discussion of policy and the repercussions of policy if implemented rather than emotional sensationalism.
Oh I see, you mean like calling for russian hackers to access and leak classified communications?
copypasta a strawman tweet from a rightwing mouthpiece, this is your sophisticated know-better outlook?
Look, we get it, don't put all your chips on mainstream media clickbait headlines. That's like 101 level stuff.
Maybe you'd like to address the issue of the would-be leader of the free world joking about the latest crater in the world's shiny new global battlefield called cyberespionage.
On July 28 2016 03:18 SlammerIV wrote: By the same token I feel people need to realize that many of Trumps policies are the result of sober, logical reasoning, even if you may disagree with them at least you should respect differences of opinion, too often on the internet I see Hurr durr Trump Nazi!!!
Lets try to have a reasonably discussion of policy and the repercussions of policy if implemented rather than emotional sensationalism.
Oh I see, you mean like calling for russian hackers to access and leak classified communications?
I don't really agree with Trump's style of campaigning, and quite frankly I voted for Ted Cruz in the primary, however if you get past the bombastic rhetoric Trump's campaign platform fairly solid policy wise.
EDIT: Of course I completely understand why many people dislike Trump and will not vote for him, obviously if you are on the progressive side of things you will vote Hillary and I have several conservative friends who have severe issues with Trump's personality. WhatI am trying to address here is the fact that, if you have a conservative worldview, than I think voting for Trump is the correct choice from a policy prospective however personally repulsive/bombastic he is.
(For the record I do not think what Trump says to be that out there, I think our political and media culture is way too concerned with political correctness at the expense of looking issues squarely in the face).
On July 28 2016 03:18 SlammerIV wrote: By the same token I feel people need to realize that many of Trumps policies are the result of sober, logical reasoning, even if you may disagree with them at least you should respect differences of opinion, too often on the internet I see Hurr durr Trump Nazi!!!
Lets try to have a reasonably discussion of policy and the repercussions of policy if implemented rather than emotional sensationalism.
Oh I see, you mean like calling for russian hackers to access and leak classified communications?
I don't really agree with Trump's style of campaigning, and quite frankly I voted for Ted Cruz in the primary, however if you get past the bombastic rhetoric Trump's campaign platform fairly solid policy wise.
EDIT: Of course I completely understand why many people dislike Trump and will not vote for him, obviously if you are on the progressive side of things you will vote Hillary and I have several conservative friends who have severe issues with Trump's personality. WhatI am trying to address here is the fact that, if you have a conservative worldview, than I think voting for Trump is the correct choice from a policy prospective however personally repulsive/bombastic he is.
(For the record I do not think what Trump says to be that out there, I think our political and media culture is way too concerned with political correctness at the expense of looking issues squarely in the face).
Power to you, vote the ticket I guess
[edit] I can see that, and it's refreshing to have someone explain their support without an apology in their throat or a leering challenge. But it seems like an oversimplification to vote for the policy platform concocted by whatever's left of the republican party and disavow any concern over leadership qualities. I'm sure we don't agree on much at a surface level but I appreciate your honesty and candor.
FWIW, my take: political correctness is both an overgrown credo and a misunderstood (valuable) social evolution, with much improvement on public discourse needed regardless, including less adherence to mindless pc.
But just because you're not pc doesn't mean you're helping anything.
copypasta a strawman tweet from a rightwing mouthpiece, this is your sophisticated know-better outlook?
Look, we get it, don't put all your chips on mainstream media clickbait headlines. That's like 101 level stuff.
Maybe you'd like to address the issue of the would-be leader of the free world joking about the latest crater in the world's shiny new global battlefield called cyberespionage.
copypasta a strawman tweet from a rightwing mouthpiece, this is your sophisticated know-better outlook?
Look, we get it, don't put all your chips on mainstream media clickbait headlines. That's like 101 level stuff.
Maybe you'd like to address the issue of the would-be leader of the free world joking about the latest crater in the world's shiny new global battlefield called cyberespionage.
What's the problem exactly?
So you see no problem with laughing off a foreign power's direct meddling in our political process? A foreign power historically and continually directly opposed to the influence and standing of the U.S., with a fascist leader and clear aims of militaristic expansion.
And you're giving out advice like people should take you seriously.
copypasta a strawman tweet from a rightwing mouthpiece, this is your sophisticated know-better outlook?
Look, we get it, don't put all your chips on mainstream media clickbait headlines. That's like 101 level stuff.
Maybe you'd like to address the issue of the would-be leader of the free world joking about the latest crater in the world's shiny new global battlefield called cyberespionage.
What's the problem exactly?
So you see no problem with laughing off a foreign power's direct meddling in our political process? A foreign power historically and continually directly opposed to the influence and standing of the U.S., with a fascist leader and clear aims of militaristic expansion.
Are you talking about Wikileaks? DJT made a simple, easy to understand jab at HRC's missing emails, like he's done many times before.
copypasta a strawman tweet from a rightwing mouthpiece, this is your sophisticated know-better outlook?
Look, we get it, don't put all your chips on mainstream media clickbait headlines. That's like 101 level stuff.
Maybe you'd like to address the issue of the would-be leader of the free world joking about the latest crater in the world's shiny new global battlefield called cyberespionage.
What's the problem exactly?
So you see no problem with laughing off a foreign power's direct meddling in our political process? A foreign power historically and continually directly opposed to the influence and standing of the U.S., with a fascist leader and clear aims of militaristic expansion.
Are you talking about Wikileaks? DJT made a simple, easy to understand jab at HRC's missing emails, like he's done many times before.
Like I said... avoiding any kind of serious response and parroting a superficially related political message. Literally going for personal benefit at the expense of national security.
It's not that he said something that can only be defended as a joke, if you call that a joke. It's that that was the only statement about it from him. The only thing he had to say about it, we shouldn't take seriously!
copypasta a strawman tweet from a rightwing mouthpiece, this is your sophisticated know-better outlook?
Look, we get it, don't put all your chips on mainstream media clickbait headlines. That's like 101 level stuff.
Maybe you'd like to address the issue of the would-be leader of the free world joking about the latest crater in the world's shiny new global battlefield called cyberespionage.
What's the problem exactly?
So you see no problem with laughing off a foreign power's direct meddling in our political process? A foreign power historically and continually directly opposed to the influence and standing of the U.S., with a fascist leader and clear aims of militaristic expansion.
Are you talking about Wikileaks? DJT made a simple, easy to understand jab at HRC's missing emails, like he's done many times before.
Like I said... avoiding any kind of serious response and parroting a superficially related political message. Literally going for personal benefit at the expense of national security.
It's not that he said something that can only be defended as a joke, if you call that a joke. It's that that was the only statement about it from him. The only thing he had to say about it, we shouldn't take seriously!
Color me reassured?
I really don't know what your problem is, either in general or as regards this bit about the emails, which is why I wanted you to explain the problem in your own words, but I'm just getting nonsense buzzwords like "national security." I don't think you or anybody else knows where the DNC leak came from, and Trump said as much. You're playing up the narrative about Russia that the media ran with, okay; let's say for argument that were all true and everybody is a Putin stooge. Are you trying to tell me you need a presidential nominee to explain hacking is bad or you'll be totally lost and can't make up your own mind?
copypasta a strawman tweet from a rightwing mouthpiece, this is your sophisticated know-better outlook?
Look, we get it, don't put all your chips on mainstream media clickbait headlines. That's like 101 level stuff.
Maybe you'd like to address the issue of the would-be leader of the free world joking about the latest crater in the world's shiny new global battlefield called cyberespionage.
What's the problem exactly?
So you see no problem with laughing off a foreign power's direct meddling in our political process? A foreign power historically and continually directly opposed to the influence and standing of the U.S., with a fascist leader and clear aims of militaristic expansion.
Are you talking about Wikileaks? DJT made a simple, easy to understand jab at HRC's missing emails, like he's done many times before.
Like I said... avoiding any kind of serious response and parroting a superficially related political message. Literally going for personal benefit at the expense of national security.
It's not that he said something that can only be defended as a joke, if you call that a joke. It's that that was the only statement about it from him. The only thing he had to say about it, we shouldn't take seriously!
Color me reassured?
I really don't know what your problem is, either in general or as regards this bit about the emails, which is why I wanted you to explain the problem in your own words, but I'm just getting nonsense buzzwords like "national security." I don't think you or anybody else knows where the DNC leak came from, and Trump said as much. You're playing up the narrative about Russia that the media ran with, okay; let's say for argument that were all true and everybody is a Putin stooge. Are you trying to tell me you need a presidential nominee to explain hacking is bad or you'll be totally lost and can't make up your own mind?
I don't expect you to actually engage with my arguments at this point, I'm just laying it out for anyone reading a trump thread who has a brain to be saved.
copypasta a strawman tweet from a rightwing mouthpiece, this is your sophisticated know-better outlook?
Look, we get it, don't put all your chips on mainstream media clickbait headlines. That's like 101 level stuff.
Maybe you'd like to address the issue of the would-be leader of the free world joking about the latest crater in the world's shiny new global battlefield called cyberespionage.
What's the problem exactly?
So you see no problem with laughing off a foreign power's direct meddling in our political process? A foreign power historically and continually directly opposed to the influence and standing of the U.S., with a fascist leader and clear aims of militaristic expansion.
Are you talking about Wikileaks? DJT made a simple, easy to understand jab at HRC's missing emails, like he's done many times before.
Like I said... avoiding any kind of serious response and parroting a superficially related political message. Literally going for personal benefit at the expense of national security.
It's not that he said something that can only be defended as a joke, if you call that a joke. It's that that was the only statement about it from him. The only thing he had to say about it, we shouldn't take seriously!
Color me reassured?
I really don't know what your problem is, either in general or as regards this bit about the emails, which is why I wanted you to explain the problem in your own words, but I'm just getting nonsense buzzwords like "national security." I don't think you or anybody else knows where the DNC leak came from, and Trump said as much. You're playing up the narrative about Russia that the media ran with, okay; let's say for argument that were all true and everybody is a Putin stooge. Are you trying to tell me you need a presidential nominee to explain hacking is bad or you'll be totally lost and can't make up your own mind?
I don't expect you to actually engage with my arguments at this point, I'm just laying it out for anyone reading a trump thread who has a brain to be saved.
You're not making arguments, you're just spamming sanctimony. Can you name anything DJT has said or done that you agree with?
Personally, I have an extreme distaste for Trump simply because of the type of person he is and the business he conducts...this election has reaffirmed my hatred for him.
However, at the end of the day, Trump is a businessman, not a politician. America is not a business, it's a country. I don't think a businessman should be the commander-in-chief of a country. if he really wanted to be involved in politics, it would make much more sense to have him as Secretary of Treasury, not the president. Just on paper, if Trump was elected president, he would have command of the armed forces, be in charge of foreign policy, appoint.nominate federal officials/judges, and the power of executive order. In my opinion, that is too much power to be giving to a businessman, let alone Trump of all people.
Would Hilary be a better president than Trump? Maybe yes, maybe not, but i would rather knowingly elect someone ill-suited/moderately prepared for the job than to elect Trump, who has no prior experience in politics and no available voting record..
If you had to vote for the best chef in the world, you would probably pick Gordon Ramsay. It is proven that people, in the absence of good information, make decisions purely based on recognition, whether that recognition is from negativity or positivity, we have the impression we know more about the one we've heard of, even if all we've heard of is the name. This is why signs with a person's name being put up on lawns everywhere work.
Your opinion is uninformed and worthless. Your only sources of information are sensationalist news outlets and satirical comedy shows. You could not possibly serve effectively as HR in deciding the person who would be most qualified to run a country. This is the failure of democracy, and the only thing that protects you at all from your own catastrophic incompetence is that the people able to run for the position are usually highly motivated to do their best, are already living comfortably, and have the support of actually knowledgeable advisors whose positions were not determined by popular vote.
The reason Trump is a frightening figure is that he cannot even portray the image that he cares about and understands domestic and international issues. He flings shit at the current sitting president, gets into petty internet fights, pulls those petty fights into his speeches, and basically only gives the impression that he does not have the resolve and fortitude to cooperate globally with other countries. His only vague promises have to do with "making other countries pay," which to me sounds like the seeds of war and distrust. Running a country is not like running a business, the goal is not the maximize profits. If Trump becomes president, America's relationships with many countries it depends on across the world are likely to become very sour, and the next president will have a hell of a mess to clean up with international relations.
All that said, Hilary is prominent for almost the same reason. Her family has been in the public consciousness since her husband's scandal. It doesn't matter a bit that everything people say about both people is negative. You recognize the name, you vote for it.
I still think Hilary is going to be more competent. If only because she's more likely to listen to the advice she receives from experts. The email scandals are genuinely concerning, and all you can really hope is that the tech stuff is so set up and automatic for the president that they could not possibly screw it up.
If Trump somehow dropped out and were replaced, you could bet that person eats up the vote just from how sick people are of the scandals. All you would have to do is keep your mouth shut, and even petty name recognition shouldn't be enough to beat the breath of fresh air that would be.
Since last posting here I've stopped supporting Trump. Hillary is a very unappealing choice, yes, but Trump seems to still be unwilling to even try to make coherent proposals. I used to think he was holding his plans back and throwing out outlandish things for people to fight over, but it's growing late in the race now and I expect more evidence of serious thinking and planning.
I'm not sure why anyone would support Trump. If you just watch one of his speeches, they are of no substance and his comments are quite disturbing. Sure you want someone who takes action, but the real question is do you want Trump to be the person that is making the decisions of the action. No.
Before you know it he is actually starting to build a wall. When asked who will pay the wall, his anwser: Mexico. The obvious follow up question is of course how will you make Mexico pay. No anwser is given by Trump.
On August 21 2016 05:52 topschutter wrote: I'm not sure why anyone would support Trump. If you just watch one of his speeches, they are of no substance and his comments are quite disturbing. Sure you want someone who takes action, but the real question is do you want Trump to be the person that is making the decisions of the action. No.
Before you know it he is actually starting to build a wall. When asked who will pay the wall, his anwser: Mexico. The obvious follow up question is of course how will you make Mexico pay. No anwser is given by Trump.
On August 21 2016 05:52 topschutter wrote: I'm not sure why anyone would support Trump. If you just watch one of his speeches, they are of no substance and his comments are quite disturbing. Sure you want someone who takes action, but the real question is do you want Trump to be the person that is making the decisions of the action. No.
Before you know it he is actually starting to build a wall. When asked who will pay the wall, his anwser: Mexico. The obvious follow up question is of course how will you make Mexico pay. No anwser is given by Trump.
Thanks! In theory this sounds like a decent plan, especially how it shows reasons to compell Mexcio to pay (not force them to pay, but compell them to pay says a lot about the plan), but in my opinion it is very naive to think this will work. Not even mentioning how incredibly absurd it is to want to build a wall in the first place.
Canadian so I don't have a vote, but regardless of platform or agenda, Trump is just by far the worst figure I could imagine being in charge of a country. Hillary should be tried in a court for the emails scandal, but Trump is blatantly sexist, homophobic, forgetful, deceitful, racist, misogynist, radical, and pro-violence. In every video I've seen him speak, he sounds remarkably unintelligent, to the point of sounding stupid, and nothing he says sounds well substantiated. Whether you think his views are an act to drum up supporters or his true self doesn't matter, because either he paints or presents himself in such a poor manner that I couldn't possibly support that as the face of my (your) country. At the very least Hillary represents (or claims to represent) enviable qualities such as unity (or at the very least doesn't represent shit values).
I didn't notice this blog yet, but it warrants response.
You're not stupid or crazy for supporting Trump. But your reasoning for supporting him really matters.
I think it is entirely legitimate if you support donald trump based on his policies. In that event, I assume it's largely based on his stance on immigration coupled with an impression of a semi-socially liberal platform. Nobody on the left has the Trumpian attitude towards immigration, and unlike other republican candidates who are tough on immigration, there is at least a chance of Trump being somewhat socially liberal, because he has espoused somewhat socially liberal views in the past. Assuming that he is pandering to the republican base when he's presenting views you don't agree with (and that are inconsistent with views he's had in the past) makes some sense. It doesn't fully make sense to have this point of view and then to also assume that he's not pandering to your views when he's presenting policy that you are a fan of, but this is fair enough. You don't have to agree with everything he says to think he is the better candidate anyway.
Then personally, there are aspects of his candidacy that scare me personally because there are political issues I find hugely important that Trump is in total opposition to. For one, I think climate change represents the biggest threat to the world. Not terrorism, not war in the middle east, not immigration, not an aging or lazy population getting too high benefits, but climate change. For people who worry about immigration, they should echo this sentiment; climate change seems likely to force the relocation of unprecedented numbers of people through the next century. The west has completely failed to accommodate 3 million syrian refugees. If Bangladesh gets too flooded, Middle East gets too hot, Himalayas start being less able to supply water for 1.4 billion people (and while I am not saying that climate change will definitely lead to all of these happening during the next century, and it's possible that technological advances will largely be able to deal with the consequences of these issues), one of them to some degree coming true is likely to lead to a refugee crisis 20+ times the size we've been unable to deal with.
And Trump has stated that he thinks climate change is a chinese hoax to hurt american industry. It's an absolutely ignorant and dangerous statement to make from any leader figure. It's anti-science.
And that is another fundamental problem with Trump on policy level. He willingly panders to anti-science crowds - and this is dangerous because then he enables these points of views in a way that contributes to the extended ignorance of those groups. On March 28. 2014, he stated that there are MANY CASES of vaccines causing autism in children, another profoundly ignorant, stupid and dangerous statement to make.
And stuff like this makes it really hard for me to accept it when people use Trump's personal character as any type of reasoning for why they want to vote for him. I get that Clinton is perceived as untrustworthy. Absolutely. I have no problems with accepting that she's willing to lie for her own personal benefit. But then people are using this as justification for voting for one of the very few people in your entire country with a significantly worse relationship with the truth! Trump just fucking makes up stuff as he goes along. He earlier claimed to be pro-life, now he's pro-choice. He's the most christian of all republicans, but doesn't go to church, and some young independents seem to like him because he's plausibly an atheist republican. He corrupts the political discourse through his name-calling and twitter-campaign (it's impossible to express a nuanced thought through 140 characters - politics should by nature be an extremely nuanced platform). He is an absolute megalomaniac with clear narcissistic traits.
Essentially, I feel like there are only two intellectually honest and non-ignorant reasonings behind supporting Trump. One, you feel that immigration is the by far biggest issue facing the US and you want to deport all illegal immigrants, build a wall, and possibly have a moratorium on muslims entering the US. (Basically, if your point of view is that immigration is the societal issue, in the same way I feel about climate change, it's perfectly reasonable to prioritize this when voting). Two, you are fundamentally ideologically opposed to mostly all liberal political platforms, and you realize that a republican candidate will mean more christianity in school and society, conservative supreme justices, harder to get abortions, less focus on public education / health care as opposed to private options, more focus on the individual over the collective (although the libertarian wing of republicans seem very weak nowadays), less taxation and redistribution. Voting Trump because of policy is fair enough. But voting for Donald Trump because of the 'honesty of his character' or 'because he says stuff like it is' or whatever, that is profoundly ignorant. He lies and panders more than any other candidate, ever.
Interesting analysis Liquid'Drone. While I supported him, it was neither about immigration or opposition to the liberal platforms you named. It's probably correct to say that I was being either ignorant, intellectually dishonest, or both.
He corrupts the political discourse through his name-calling and twitter-campaign (it's impossible to express a nuanced thought through 140 characters - politics should by nature be an extremely nuanced platform).
As I perceive it, our political discourse was already completely corrupt and devoid of nuance before the arrival of Trump. Local politicians seek votes by buying TV ads and planting signs with their name on it in people's yards. At the federal level, again discourse consists mostly of TV ads, farcical "debates", and plenty of propaganda by our entertainment "news" programs, which are practically mouthpieces of the two parties. I'm sure one could make an effort to ignore all that and seek research online and in libraries, but it's rather disheartening to think your vote still gets equal weight with the 100s of millions of others, the majority of whom probably vote based on ads and what the news tells them. And should your candidate get into office, they are still beholden to powerful lobbying interests, their party, and pandering for future funding and reelection.
So I guess part of what made Trump so appealing was that he treated the process like the farce that it is, angering nearly all the players in it who treat it as their sports game. But now we are back to business as usual, and it seems his buffoonery was not an act, so out of all the best and brightest that might have led our country, we get to choose Hilary Clinton and no one else.
On August 23 2016 00:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: I didn't notice this blog yet, but it warrants response.
You're not stupid or crazy for supporting Trump. But your reasoning for supporting him really matters.
I think it is entirely legitimate if you support donald trump based on his policies. In that event, I assume it's largely based on his stance on immigration coupled with an impression of a semi-socially liberal platform. Nobody on the left has the Trumpian attitude towards immigration, and unlike other republican candidates who are tough on immigration, there is at least a chance of Trump being somewhat socially liberal, because he has espoused somewhat socially liberal views in the past. Assuming that he is pandering to the republican base when he's presenting views you don't agree with (and that are inconsistent with views he's had in the past) makes some sense. It doesn't fully make sense to have this point of view and then to also assume that he's not pandering to your views when he's presenting policy that you are a fan of, but this is fair enough. You don't have to agree with everything he says to think he is the better candidate anyway.
Then personally, there are aspects of his candidacy that scare me personally because there are political issues I find hugely important that Trump is in total opposition to. For one, I think climate change represents the biggest threat to the world. Not terrorism, not war in the middle east, not immigration, not an aging or lazy population getting too high benefits, but climate change. For people who worry about immigration, they should echo this sentiment; climate change seems likely to force the relocation of unprecedented numbers of people through the next century. The west has completely failed to accommodate 3 million syrian refugees. If Bangladesh gets too flooded, Middle East gets too hot, Himalayas start being less able to supply water for 1.4 billion people (and while I am not saying that climate change will definitely lead to all of these happening during the next century, and it's possible that technological advances will largely be able to deal with the consequences of these issues), one of them to some degree coming true is likely to lead to a refugee crisis 20+ times the size we've been unable to deal with.
And Trump has stated that he thinks climate change is a chinese hoax to hurt american industry. It's an absolutely ignorant and dangerous statement to make from any leader figure. It's anti-science.
And that is another fundamental problem with Trump on policy level. He willingly panders to anti-science crowds - and this is dangerous because then he enables these points of views in a way that contributes to the extended ignorance of those groups. On March 28. 2014, he stated that there are MANY CASES of vaccines causing autism in children, another profoundly ignorant, stupid and dangerous statement to make.
And stuff like this makes it really hard for me to accept it when people use Trump's personal character as any type of reasoning for why they want to vote for him. I get that Clinton is perceived as untrustworthy. Absolutely. I have no problems with accepting that she's willing to lie for her own personal benefit. But then people are using this as justification for voting for one of the very few people in your entire country with a significantly worse relationship with the truth! Trump just fucking makes up stuff as he goes along. He earlier claimed to be pro-life, now he's pro-choice. He's the most christian of all republicans, but doesn't go to church, and some young independents seem to like him because he's plausibly an atheist republican. He corrupts the political discourse through his name-calling and twitter-campaign (it's impossible to express a nuanced thought through 140 characters - politics should by nature be an extremely nuanced platform). He is an absolute megalomaniac with clear narcissistic traits.
Essentially, I feel like there are only two intellectually honest and non-ignorant reasonings behind supporting Trump. One, you feel that immigration is the by far biggest issue facing the US and you want to deport all illegal immigrants, build a wall, and possibly have a moratorium on muslims entering the US. (Basically, if your point of view is that immigration is the societal issue, in the same way I feel about climate change, it's perfectly reasonable to prioritize this when voting). Two, you are fundamentally ideologically opposed to mostly all liberal political platforms, and you realize that a republican candidate will mean more christianity in school and society, conservative supreme justices, harder to get abortions, less focus on public education / health care as opposed to private options, more focus on the individual over the collective (although the libertarian wing of republicans seem very weak nowadays), less taxation and redistribution. Voting Trump because of policy is fair enough. But voting for Donald Trump because of the 'honesty of his character' or 'because he says stuff like it is' or whatever, that is profoundly ignorant. He lies and panders more than any other candidate, ever.
Do you write for a living Drone? Because I would read your stuff. :o
I always thought he was just a plant by the Clintons to destroy Bush and Cruz. He says some crazy things at times and it makes me think if he's trying to lose on purpose so Hillary can win.
I was about to write a critique of Trump, but what is left to be said... Drone did a nice summary. I think that perhaps the more interesting phenomenon is the US electorate.
I find it a bit surprising that immigration is such a massively important voting issue for the American people. It seems to me like it's not that harmful to the life of the average American, but it has been blown out of proportion through years of harmful "us versus them" political discourse. It seems to me like fundamentally there's this dogmatic, unsubstantiated belief that illegal immigrants cause more harm to US society than they really do. And I'm not sure why so many Americans are so eager to dislike, distrust and even hate those people that it's no longer about making the US great, it becomes some sort o desire for retribution against an enemy of "real" Americans. It's thinly veiled as a measure to ensure the common good, but it really isn't about that.
But even if illegal immigration was as detrimental to US society as some of these people seem to think it is, you can't get away from it, Trump's approach on many policy areas is very much a concern. How do intelligent Trump supporters like xDaunt make sense of the chinese conspiracy around global warming? The anti-science stuff? The frankly megalomaniac rants where he refuses to mention specific policies when asked directly?
Ultimately, to me, Trump is not nearly as scary as the phenomenons that make him a semi-viable political candidate. I think the American electorate is misguided, and immigration as a pivotal voting issue is social construct that isn't rooted in reality. I don't know where it comes from and how it was built because I'm not too well versed in US history, but it seems to me like the image that many US people have to illegal immigrants is pure fiction.
Eh, considering the alternative is Hillary Clinton i dont think your THAT crazy...
If you read some of her leaked emails she treat humans like... numbers its unreal.
I think it was benghazi?? (not sure ) that she quoted 18 humans as an acceptable loss for collateral.
Also her background and family line is shady as fuck, one of her relatives ( cant remember brother?) tried to corner the nut market in Georgia(country). (again, i forgot i just read for fun haha) or something
Politics will always be shady, after all it is about power and its distribution.
If the candidate is absolutely clean then I will be far more concerned how he/she can deal with the international politics, which requires that person to maintain the dedicated power balance between super nations? (of cause unless it is in fact covered by perfectly)
Sucks as it is, at the end the best candidate is the one who can bring actual progression to the country and hopefully in an ethical way.
I do believe he is racist or at the least pandering to that crowd which is just as bad.
I truly believe he is more interested in serving his own needs and those of corporate America more than the American people.
In my opinion he is an idiot a smart idiot but an idiot non the less. I am embarrassed to have him represent us to the world. Trying to understand those who voted for him is beyond me as I am sure those who did can not understand me.
And to be completely honest I know in my mind that those who voted or support him are not automatically an Idiot or stupid.As much as I hate to say it I would hold it against you at least a bit. As unfair as that may be.
On February 14 2017 05:44 FuDDx wrote: Did not vote for him Do not care for him.
I do believe he is racist or at the least pandering to that crowd which is just as bad.
I truly believe he is more interested in serving his own needs and those of corporate America more than the American people.
In my opinion he is an idiot a smart idiot but an idiot non the less. I am embarrassed to have him represent us to the world. Trying to understand those who voted for him is beyond me as I am sure those who did can not understand me.
And to be completely honest I know in my mind that those who voted or support him are not automatically an Idiot or stupid.As much as I hate to say it I would hold it against you at least a bit. As unfair as that may be.
concerning the representing part: everyone i know agrees that he is terrible and we are afraid of what might happen, but we do realize that he does not represent the views of all americans, we just mainly feel bad for you.
nevertheless i am openly curious about the perspective of trump supporters as i cannot seem to find any.
On February 14 2017 03:50 Kleinmuuhg wrote: So I am really interested in your opinion now? Are you content with your choice?
It had already changed before the election. No I don't like the things he is doing, but one positive thing is I think that he is shaking people out of their indifference and ennui concerning politics. Our country is fragmented in so many ways, and a villain to fight against may just be the second best thing to a hero to rally behind. Hopefully he doesn't do too much damage globally, and maybe the political and military clout of the US will wane through his isolationist leanings and impulsive decision making.
On February 14 2017 03:50 Kleinmuuhg wrote: So I am really interested in your opinion now? Are you content with your choice?
It had already changed before the election. No I don't like the things he is doing, but one positive thing is I think that he is shaking people out of their indifference and ennui concerning politics. Our country is fragmented in so many ways, and a villain to fight against may just be the second best thing to a hero to rally behind. Hopefully he doesn't do too much damage globally, and maybe the political and military clout of the US will wane through his isolationist leanings and impulsive decision making.
On February 14 2017 05:44 FuDDx wrote: Did not vote for him Do not care for him.
I do believe he is racist or at the least pandering to that crowd which is just as bad.
I truly believe he is more interested in serving his own needs and those of corporate America more than the American people.
In my opinion he is an idiot a smart idiot but an idiot non the less. I am embarrassed to have him represent us to the world. Trying to understand those who voted for him is beyond me as I am sure those who did can not understand me.
And to be completely honest I know in my mind that those who voted or support him are not automatically an Idiot or stupid.As much as I hate to say it I would hold it against you at least a bit. As unfair as that may be.
concerning the representing part: everyone i know agrees that he is terrible and we are afraid of what might happen, but we do realize that he does not represent the views of all americans, we just mainly feel bad for you.
nevertheless i am openly curious about the perspective of trump supporters as i cannot seem to find any.
You can talk to xDaunt or Biology Major. You'll find them in the us megathread.
Spoiler alert, don't try to change their mind. Trump could nuke Mexico city they would still think he is great.