Donald Trump

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Incumbency Inbreeding is the problem, not the solution.

Well, I hope you're not saying incumbency is the problem. So I'm really curious what you mean by inbreeding here.

Not a physical inbreeding. More along two fronts:

1) Where ideas get spit swapped back and forth so many times in the same group that it doesn't matter if the idea is right or wrong or even applicable any more. Fighting for the idea/principle becomes the end game

2)Where politicians seem to form a nobility - whether by blood*, or by repeatedly reconnecting with previous politicians. In some cases there are third plus generation politicians running for office. In the case of political connections, it is almost as if it doesn't matter which side they are on, or what they support - it only matters that they are connected.

It isn't that all incumbents are bad, or even most of them. It is that we need some new blood, some new ideas and people whose first and last priority isn't tearing down the enemy and then figuring out what they need to do to remain in office for the next forty years.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

In the case of political connections, it is almost as if it doesn't matter which side they are on, or what they support - it only matters that they are connected.

I feel "what they support" is something reserved exclusively for candidates with a track record. For example, has Donald Trump supported building a wall along the Mexican border? I'd say not. From what I can tell, his only actual action on that score has been meeting with the President of Mexico, and he doesn't seem even sightly on board.

He has said he will support it. That's just words. With politicians, that usually means: lies.

I can definitely see how being well-connected would be a far more tangible, more real qualification than throwing some words around. In general, I favor incumbents because they have experience in the actual job.

One of the reasons I'm so dissatisfied with this year's election is that all the candidates are is issues. Both candidates have shady track records, Trump's in his business deals and Clinton's in actual government. There's no way anyone would be voting for these jokers if it weren't for policy platforms, which I consider hot air (especially when it comes to anything even vaguely resembling fiscal responsibility). So really, no rational reason to vote for either of them. No reason at all.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

In the case of political connections, it is almost as if it doesn't matter which side they are on, or what they support - it only matters that they are connected.

I feel "what they support" is something reserved exclusively for candidates with a track record. For example, has Donald Trump supported building a wall along the Mexican border? I'd say not. From what I can tell, his only actual action on that score has been meeting with the President of Mexico, and he doesn't seem even sightly on board.

He has said he will support it. That's just words. With politicians, that usually means: lies.

I can definitely see how being well-connected would be a far more tangible, more real qualification than throwing some words around. In general, I favor incumbents because they have experience in the actual job.

One of the reasons I'm so dissatisfied with this year's election is that all the candidates are is issues. Both candidates have shady track records, Trump's in his business deals and Clinton's in actual government. There's no way anyone would be voting for these jokers if it weren't for policy platforms, which I consider hot air (especially when it comes to anything even vaguely resembling fiscal responsibility). So really, no rational reason to vote for either of them. No reason at all.

I'd agree with most of that. IMO - Hillary's track record holds a lot more potential for danger, though. I think issues should be a strong point of who we are electing. It's too bad neither one ranks high on the trust meter.

It does take some time to get acclimated and make friends in congress, and I often wonder how much of the show the aides are really running.

If an incumbent's experience has translated into mostly beneficial deals for the public, I wouldn't be against that person returning to office. If an incumbent can learn to do some compromising - enough to get some deals done, without letting really bad legislation get past, I wouldn't be against them returning to office. Finding someone who can and does both is getting rarer and rarer.

If somehow Trump manages to pull this off, the door will be wide open for legitimate third party candidates - and enough of those in Congress would force both sides to the bargaining table.

Yeah - I know - too much wishful thinking there.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Assuming I want people's advice based on what they know about politics...

Assuming the average voter's interests align better with celebrities than hard working people.

If the topic is politics...yeah, I don't think that's an unfair assumption to make. Understanding of the subject seems far more relevant than how close a persons social standing and conditions are to your own. These "pseudo-credentials" only matter when evaluating the quality of a person's understanding, if you allow for self-affirming biases to color the data and if you have nothing else to go by.

"This person is closer to me in life; therefore he/she is more likely to be right"

Absolute hogwash.

"

Assuming that honesty isn't important.

Assuming that celebrities know anything about anything other than spending money, rehab and maintaining public exposure.

Incumbency Inbreeding is the problem, not the solution.

I never meant to say that honesty isn't important. I meant to say that some rather silly assumptions and insinuations are being made (intentionally or not), namely:

1) that a combination of [honesty] and [hard work] is a ward against ignorance of subject matters outside ones area(s) of expertise, and:
2) that [honesty] and [hard work] are mutualy exclusive with [being written about in tabloids], and:
3) [general knowledge] is inversely proportional to [tabloid exposure].

------------------

While we are assuming things, let's also assume that the "honest and hardworking people" in the parody version aren't just being butthurt over the fact that some other people who have had more success than them in some areas of life are now expressing opinions in conflict with their own and therefore feel the strong need to belittle them in order to re-affirm themselves.

Would the people behind this parody still be here berating these Famous Actors™ for stressing the importance of a presidental election if they had been anti-Hillary instead of anti-Trump? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say no, not in a million years.

The average human is competetive, petty and easily offended.

The Donald got caught talking about women like a Chad when women weren't around. Really scary shit if you're a female or a nu-male I guess. This is a tactical bomb whose purpose is to divert from the new Wikileaks drop. Trump already made an official statement, saying it was "locker room banter". He also said that Bill Clinton told him far worse things on the golf court. That's good old counter-puncher Donald, preparing for the counter-punch if Hillary confronts him with this on Sunday. He will go all out with Rapin' Bill and Hillary covering for him and not giving a fuck about raped women. I need to get some popcorn ready.

Here's the tape btw: https://my.mixtape.moe/zyxrtk.mp4

Well, this is a death of a thousand cuts. And October just begins!

I'm just starting to feel a little pity about those who still will support him after this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJIydD7ULz8

So the recent leaks reveal two things:
1. Trump is probably just as much of a misogynist as Bill Clinton
2. Hilary Clinton doesn't believe in many, perhaps any, of the policies on her platform

If you think the Donald got the worst of that, you're wrong. We pretty much knew the misogynist thing already, as evidenced by his feud with the former Miss America, and the Donald correctly drew attention to Bill Clinton himself. On the other side, as I said earlier, the only thing these candidates are at this point is their issues, and that's precisely what the WikiLeaks emails effectively destroy for the Clinton campaign.

She can't stand on policy, she can't stand on record, she can't stand on character. The only thing Hilary can stand on now is not-Trump. At this point, the Presidency is Trump's to throw away. As long as he doesn't do anything monolithically stupid, he's going to win.

Funny thing is, with the Donald, monolithically stupid is still a real possibility.

I see it more like the policies that she proposes are the ones that are possible. You judge if that's bad or not for being two faced, but I don't think it's particularly worrysome (foreign policy is more worrying, but the other option is just stupid). I still remember her saying to Bernie that US is not Scandinavia, and I find hilarious that she has some ideas in common (it's ruthless enough to discredit other people for political gains). Surely it's hypocritical, but meh. I don't think this is that bad. It's the kind of thing I hear in the locker room.

Still, given the info we have, I don't think your conclussion follows. Polling shows exactly the opposite, Trump is getting crushed. He is pretty much being abandoned by the GOP right now. People won't follow the leak details closely (specially because Trump himself tends to dominate the news). They never do. One thing is to insult people, but admitting to harassing...well, that's different.

Didn't Bill Clinton navigate this sucessfully two decades ago anyway? Why would someone care? (I don't know the story behind that, but if he survived it, it's unlikely someone will care).

"

NeroNoah wrote:

I'm just starting to feel a little pity about those who still will support him after this.

What Trump said is certainly distasteful. It's the talk of a player, of a frat boy, of a braggart. However, unless something else comes up (it could) - all we have is talk.

We have Trump **talking** about acting raunchy whereas we have Bill actually doing it.

We have one person who was an elected official (governor and president) acting this way vs someone who is not a public official

We have physical DNA evidence Clinton actually did something vs an audiotape of Trump talking about it.


On August 17, the FBI reported its conclusion that Clinton was the source of the semen on the dress "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty."


Most importantly though - we have multiple cases of Bill's actions being non-consenual. In other words, more than a couple women have accused Bill of sexual assault and rape.





We have a legal financial settlement of eight hundred fifty dollars which Bill had to pay one of his victims.

"Clinton Settles Paula Jones Lawsuit for $850,000
Saturday, November 14, 1998; Page A1

President Clinton reached an out-of-court settlement with Paula Jones yesterday, agreeing to pay her $850,000 to drop the sexual harassment lawsuit that led to the worst political crisis of his career and only the third presidential impeachment inquiry in American history."




We have an impeachment by Congress because of Bill's sexual actions and lying about it under oath.




The voters who still can't decide whether actual rape and sexual assault is worse than someone bragging about trying to get some, should spend a few hours at a rape crisis center and ask the women there.

I don't recall Donald defending the rapist of a 12 year old and getting the rapist off an a technicality and then actually laughing about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z3h-R_6hrKk#t=0%20q

The way Hillary Clinton is alleged to throw things (at staffers and others when she is mad) the opening pitch of baseball season might be a balk if she throws it.

Then we have the issue of Hillary allegedly physically assaulting her husband:

"One attack on the President reportedly drew blood which required stitches that could have gotten Hillary Clinton serious prison time if it was reported to law enforcement at the time."


...............

"One morning in late summer 1995, I entered the White House to assume my post just outside the Oval Office officially Secret Service Post E-6. Things were stirring, and I wanted to know why.

"Everyone on post that night, Secret Service agents (SAs), Secret Service Uniformed Division (UD) officers like myself, the houseman, and the ushers couldn’t help but hear the First Couple arguing as sounds from their fracases traveled through the old building. Mrs. Clinton had a booming voice, and their yelling matches easily traversed the living quarters’ private elevator, vents, and staircase. Many housemen eased away, but the SAs and UD couldn’t leave their posts. This was especially a big argument that ended with a crash. SAs were obligated to respond and found its cause, a vase on the other side of the room. A houseman picked up the damage. The First Couple couldn’t just sweep up and toss out the remains because everything in the White House is logged and recorded, befitting its role as a national landmark and a veritable museum.

I peeked into the curator’s small, windowless ground-floor office across from the China Room and the Diplomatic Reception Room. It was cluttered with blueprints and history books on the every detail of the White House: fabrics, furniture, artifacts. Sure enough, there was a box containing a light blue vase smashed to bits. The rumors were true!

“Can I help you?” The White House’s official curator looked up from what she was reading, clearly annoyed and already tired of people checking out the box. “Can I help you, Officer?” she said again.

“No thanks,” I said.

The president entered around nine. His arrival times fluctuated. I couldn’t believe my eyes: a black eye! I was well accustomed to his allergy-prone, puffy eyes. But this was a shiner, a real, live, put-a-steak-on-it black eye. I was shocked. Minutes later, I popped into the office of Betty Currie, the president’s personal secretary. Nancy Hernreich, his personal scheduler, was already there.

“What’s the black mark on the president’s face?” I asked.

I felt real tension.

“Oh, uh, he’s allergic to coffee,” said Nancy, turning toward her office.

“An allergy to coffee shows in just one eye?”

Betty smiled. She burrowed down into her work, chuckling, but looking busy.

As I departed, I added, “I’m also allergic to the back of someone’s hand.”

I wanted to send a message. We knew what the mark was from, and it wasn’t right. Surely the Clintons must realize how close we are to them, I thought, how deeply we feel about our responsibilities for their safety. Didn’t they feel the same?"

.................


In many states, if Bill had filed charges, Hillary wouldn't be allowed to even own a gun, let alone have her finger on the nuclear trigger.





From the same secret service officer):


"A member of the uniformed Secret Service once cheerfully greeted Mrs Clinton by saying

"'Good morning, ma'am.'"



"'F*** off,' is how she replied"