Just from reading headlines and occasionally scanning an article over the last two or three weeks, it seems to me that Trump is getting demolished by Hillary. I don't know if polls are reflecting this yet, or if they ever will. In the past, I thought I detected a tendency for the media to make a candidate that is behind look better for the purpose of creating the image of a close race, which of course sells better. But the media doesn't seem to want to help Trump's image. Perhaps I haven't been watching the right polls, but Hillary seems to have a slight lead or maybe even a big lead depending on how you perceive poll data. Trump doesn't seem to be able to lift himself ahead. Actually, he doesn't seem like he's trying. While he's a great basher, he doesn't seem to have a strategy to defend himself when he's getting bashed.
I read an article today where a former aid claims that Trump just repeats the opinion of whoever he talked to last and that's why he's changing on issues now. He's obviously not emotionally mature. Maybe he's also just not that bright. His campaign may just be a reflection of what the "flavor of the week" leadership is saying to him.
Clinton's up 5-10 points (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html) on most of the polls, which is pretty good. It's not in the bag yet, but it's looking unlikely that Trump is going to win.
And yeah, Trump is surprisingly thin-skinned for a public official persona. The small hands butthurt comes readily to mind. A magazine editor calls him a "short-fingered vulgarian" and gets envelopes for years containing pictures of Trump with the hands highlighted. Talk about insecure.
I'm still hoping for a third party victory. But I'd take Hillary over Trump any day.
Ain't over until it's over. The liberals can have Hillary, and have perpetual Clinton-gasm as a chaser to their Obama-gasm.
Saw the Costner version of the Cuban Missile Crisis ... Thirteen Days ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSA7Evcy7iE
Putin will kill us either way, since we are plum out of leadership.
I don't know if I would use the word "demolished" to describe the race just yet. That is a description more fitting for Reagan/Mondale, Nixon/McGovern, or Johnson/Goldwater in my opinion. When compared to where he was just after the Gold Star Family debacle, the contest has tightened a bit. Two recurring problems I see with the Trump campaign are his inability to stay on message (especially when it comes to responding to criticism) and his eagerness to use Twitter without any kind of filter or censor for his remarks. The window of opportunity is closing and Mr. Trump still has an electoral problem but, as Baruch noted, the election isn't over.
Quote from: Mr. Pibb on August 30, 2016, 08:19:07 PM
I don't know if I would use the word "demolished" to describe the race just yet. That is a description more fitting for Reagan/Mondale, Nixon/McGovern, or Johnson/Goldwater in my opinion. When compared to where he was just after the Gold Star Family debacle, the contest has tightened a bit. Two recurring problems I see with the Trump campaign are his inability to stay on message (especially when it comes to responding to criticism) and his eagerness to use Twitter without any kind of filter or censor for his remarks. The window of opportunity is closing and Mr. Trump still has an electoral problem but, as Baruch noted, the election isn't over.
No, it's not over, and when I used the term demolished, actually it was "getting demolished," I didn't intend that finality was to be assumed. It was more like getting demolished at this time, in the second quarter. As Hydra pointed out, Clinton has a slight lead in the polls, which is a better indicator of Trump's situation than simply getting verbally thrashed by Clinton in the media. But even that lead in the polls doesn't meet my loose criteria for "getting demolished." It's still an interesting race.
Trump wouldn't know what to do if he won.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/21/donald-trump-isnt-running-a-bad-campaign-because-hes-not-really-running-a-campaign-at-all/
QuoteThat’s not a campaign. It’s a vanity effort designed to pump up the Trump brand rather than, you know, win.
Really, the only hope Trump has right now is to a) agree to the debates and b) monumentally lower expectations about his performance, to the point where if he shows up and doesn't piss himself on camera, he can call it a win.
Of course, he still might not even do part a), and his ego won't let him do part b).
Meanwhile, he's meeting the president of Mexico (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37227545). If he plays nice and backs off of his harsher rhetoric, he pisses off his knuckledragger core (which is actually the smart thing, since he can't win on them alone). If he sticks to his existing narrative, he pisses off everyone else (and a neighboring nation).
I'll get the popcorn.
I would be surprised if Trump's IQ is close to average. He is an imbecile who was born into money. But unlike many, I doubt his idiocy has much to him being a spoiled brat who never grew up to a just unintelligent brat who could never grow up (and has little bitch fingers).
I'm cautiously optimistic that Hillary will win, but it ain't over till it's over, and anything can happen in the next two and a quarter months. Trump and his lot are Republicans, after all, and no deceitful act or dirty trick is so low that they will not stoop to do it.
Nothing scares me more than a Trump victory. If he wins, kiss goodbye to what's left of the wall of separation between church and state.... not to mention abortion rights and the rest of your freedoms.
Quote from: Baruch on August 30, 2016, 07:06:54 PMThe liberals can have Hillary, and have perpetual Clinton-gasm as a chaser to their Obama-gasm.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Quote from: Atheon on August 31, 2016, 03:07:57 AM
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Don't worry..Baruch's political ego is just slightly less than Trump's, but not by much.
Quote from: Atheon on August 31, 2016, 03:06:38 AM
I'm cautiously optimistic that Hillary will win, but it ain't over till it's over, and anything can happen in the next two and a quarter months. Trump and his lot are Republicans, after all, and no deceitful act or dirty trick is so low that they will not stoop to do it.
Nothing scares me more than a Trump victory. If he wins, kiss goodbye to what's left of the wall of separation between church and state.... not to mention abortion rights and the rest of your freedoms.
Keep in mind that the Executive branch is not the most powerful of the US government. He can propose changes to Constitutional rights all he wants, but if Congress shoots him down, or if the Supreme Court tells him that his propositions are unconstitutional, he won't accomplish much. That's the one silver lining I see in this joke of a race. The President may be the most powerful man/woman in government, but they're weaker than the collective powers of Congress and the Supreme Court. The biggest problem with Trump being President would be that he'd represent us to the rest of the world...
As that world famous philosopher said--It ain't over 'til it's over!
And as Carvell said--Campaign? What campaign; he doesn't have one.
Many people seem to finally be realizing that Trump is just a lounge act. He's having fun, and uncovering the rock under which the Republican party has been hiding. I guess they'll have to find another rock...
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on August 31, 2016, 07:28:37 AM
Don't worry..Baruch's political ego is just slightly less than Trump's, but not by much.
It is better to be infamous than unknown. So I understand what he is doing. The election is in the bag. They are now discussing how foreign hackers will turn the tide in every electronic ballot box however they want. You don't even have to have Republican operatives messing with the ballot box ... it is all Putin! So whatever the foreign hackers, who can conveniently get to our unprotected electronic ballots, decide for us. Of course those hackers work for the CIA, not Putin. The CIA has chosen every president since 1963.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 31, 2016, 04:18:37 PM
Many people seem to finally be realizing that Trump is just a lounge act. He's having fun, and uncovering the rock under which the Republican party has been hiding. I guess they'll have to find another rock...
I hear they found more Clinton emails about Bengazi. Probably will be published in just a few more weeks. Timing ... timing.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 31, 2016, 02:46:40 PM
Keep in mind that the Executive branch is not the most powerful of the US government. He can propose changes to Constitutional rights all he wants, but if Congress shoots him down, or if the Supreme Court tells him that his propositions are unconstitutional, he won't accomplish much. That's the one silver lining I see in this joke of a race. The President may be the most powerful man/woman in government, but they're weaker than the collective powers of Congress and the Supreme Court. The biggest problem with Trump being President would be that he'd represent us to the rest of the world...
The problem with a Trump presidency is that he would determine part of the makeup of the Supreme Court. All that's required is to replace Scalia's empty seat with a young ideologue, and then Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat with another young ideologue (when she dies... she's what? 83 now?), and Thomas's seat with yet another young ideologue when he retires, all rubber-stamped by a teabag Senate. A 6-3 conservative majority of Constitution-hating ideologues. Together they can summarily ignore the Constitution and set up permanent right-wing dictatorship in America, which is the true goal of the Republicans.
If Hillary wins, we will finally get a 5-4 liberal majority on the USSC (6-3 if one of the conservatives retires or dies), and democracy is saved, and our fundamental rights (like abortion) preserved and strengthened.
A Trump win would inject new life and power into a moribund Republican Party, while a Hillary win could be the coup de grace that finally and deservedly kills off that insidious gang of thugs called the Republican Party.
It really is a critical election that will determine the future of America.
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2016, 06:13:23 PM
I hear they found more Clinton emails about Bengazi. Probably will be published in just a few more weeks. Timing ... timing.
Benghazeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Hahahahahah!
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2016, 06:13:23 PM
I hear they found more Clinton emails about Bengazi. Probably will be published in just a few more weeks. Timing ... timing.
Yeah, a lot of the Republican base wants to know - just who
is this Ben Gazi fellow, anyway? Was Clinton his mistress?
SCoTUS ... OK for FDR to try to pack it (and defeated by the SCoTUS itself) .. not OK for a Republican?
Quote from: Baruch on September 01, 2016, 06:33:28 PM
SCoTUS ... OK for FDR to try to pack it (and defeated by the SCoTUS itself) .. not OK for a Republican?
Yeah, that's right! And you seriously think The Donald (of the small dick) is a Rep??????
Quote from: Baruch on September 01, 2016, 06:33:28 PM
SCoTUS ... OK for FDR to try to pack it (and defeated by the SCoTUS itself) .. not OK for a Republican?
No, not OK for a Republican. Not OK for FDR either. We should be trying to fix the system, not perpetuating the bastardized corruption it has become. Obama should be praised for attempting to install a judicial centrist, one even admired by Republicans, at least admired until Obama nominated him.
Quote from: SGOS on September 01, 2016, 10:54:20 PM
No, not OK for a Republican. Not OK for FDR either. We should be trying to fix the system, not perpetuating the bastardized corruption it has become. Obama should be praised for attempting to install a judicial centrist, one even admired by Republicans, at least admired until Obama nominated him.
And that's exactly the point. Garland is precisely the sort of SCotUS nominee who should have sailed through with only token opposition, except -- horror of horrors! -- he was properly nominated by an incumbent president that the Party Opposite has decided is Satan incarnate. Whether it's pig-headedness or actual racism, I don't care to determine. It's wrong either way -- certainly, it must be nice to get paid $175,000 a year for a job with duties mandated by the US Constitution and
still say "fuck it, I don't feel like doing it". And weren't the GOP the ones screaming "UP OR DOWN VOTE!" when Dumbass was president and Democrats were hesitating on some of
his nominees?
As a side note, it's worth remembering that the last time there was a vacancy during a campaign year with a term-limited president, it was Reagan nominating Anthony Kennedy in 1988 with a Democrat-controlled Senate -- who properly held hearings, and ultimately approved the nomination. There was no suggestion of waiting for the results of the election.
Hypocrisy much, Senator McConnell?
All of politics has become an exercise in hypocrisy and posturing. Getting laws passed is just a bonus these days. Fundraising and getting reelected, those are the only real goals most of them have.
Quote from: Atheon on August 31, 2016, 03:06:38 AM
I'm cautiously optimistic that Hillary will win, but it ain't over till it's over, and anything can happen in the next two and a quarter months. Trump and his lot are Republicans, after all, and no deceitful act or dirty trick is so low that they will not stoop to do it.
Nothing scares me more than a Trump victory. If he wins, kiss goodbye to what's left of the wall of separation between church and state.... not to mention abortion rights and the rest of your freedoms.
Good thing I don't live in the states. Hillary Clinton is an idiot too. Not my kind of liberal, extremely moderate, bureaucratic and just boring. Like Trump, she constantly changes her opinions and lies pathologically. She once was against gay marriage, now she pretends like these the LGBTQ community's biggest supporter, then she completely denies her ever being against gay marriage.
I liked Bernie Sanders a lot and even he was a bit delusional. What the Democrats need is someone with bold, progressive ideas that's as aggressive as any Republican. We need an Ubermensch.
A compassionate realist? That would be very nice ... get a time machine, return to the Eisenhower administration.
Idealists are very deluded, and militants are just dangerous. Either should disqualify. But being hard hearted is bad too ... so a realist who can fight when necessary, and doesn't hate people.
I do feel like Trump is a cult hate sort of thing. It's fashionable to not like him even if someone doesn't know anything about his political agenda, I'm not saying Trump will make a good president, it's just that some people hate Donald Trump and don't even know his platform.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 12, 2016, 07:32:14 AM
I do feel like Trump is a cult hate sort of thing. It's fashionable to not like him even if someone doesn't know anything about his political agenda, I'm not saying Trump will make a good president, it's just that some people hate Donald Trump and don't even know his platform.
I don't think even Trump knows his own platform. I remember him saying before that he'll get a team together to figure out the best solution to something. In other words "I don't know my strategy, but I have people to strategize for me." What little he does commit to is insane. Building a wall across the entire boarder of Mexico and making Mexico pay for it. Killing the loved ones of terrorists because terrorists don't care about their own lives. Pure insanity.
Trump has been running a "campaign by bumpersticker". He says wherever comes to mind impulsively. Buddha help us if he's in charge of our foreign affairs. He'll make Dubya look like Gandhi.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 15, 2016, 06:43:41 AM
Trump has been running a "campaign by bumpersticker". He says wherever comes to mind impulsively. Buddha help us if he's in charge of our foreign affairs. He'll make Dubya look like Gandhi.
Dubya was Gandhi, in that he was harmless except to himself when eating pretzels. It was President Cheney who played Darth Vader.
Quote from: Baruch on September 15, 2016, 06:44:45 PM
Dubya was Gandhi, in that he was harmless except to himself when eating pretzels. It was President Cheney who played Darth Vader.
...and when riding bicycles and segways. :grin:
Quote from: Mr. Pibb on September 15, 2016, 11:07:46 PM
...and when riding bicycles and segways. :grin:
The guy who invented the Segway, fell off a cliff to his death riding one ... death by one's own invention. And its successor ... that mini version that is a robot skateboard ... that really caught the market on fire! Thank G-d I am too old for bicycles either.
Trump happened. And the viking lady in the opera is singing!
LOL!
I'm beginning to think there never was a campaign. I think it is possible that from the start his end game was not the presidency, but a new media outlet started by him; he saw a way to rally the angry, group (large group) that the Rep. created but kind of ignored for the most part. He found he could talk to them and they would respond. Now his aim is to keep that base intact so that when he loses, he can carry on attacking the Clintons (and other political figures) on his outlets and his base will support him. After all, that type of thing has been going on in radio for quite some time and Fox News has been the mouth piece of the regular Rep. party for awhile now. What if you could combine radio, TV, and social media all under one umbrella with his brand on it? Would that not make money?
I'm not totally sold on the above yet--but after watching his behavior in the last debate, I am convinced he does not really think he can win this race.
I don't know if "freefall" or "total meltdown" is appropriate now. Maybe "free-falling into a meltdown". He's about to make Utah go either Democratic or Independant (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664606/Poll-Trump-falls-into-tie-with-Clinton-among-Utah-voters.html?pg=all), which is something I didn't think I'd see in my lifetime.
But will Trump suck the other Republicans into the vortex of his Black Hole? Only time will tell.
Quote from: trdsf on October 13, 2016, 08:15:56 PM
I don't know if "freefall" or "total meltdown" is appropriate now. Maybe "free-falling into a meltdown". He's about to make Utah go either Democratic or Independant (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664606/Poll-Trump-falls-into-tie-with-Clinton-among-Utah-voters.html?pg=all), which is something I didn't think I'd see in my lifetime.
Quote from: Baruch on October 13, 2016, 08:46:32 PM
But will Trump suck the other Republicans into the vortex of his Black Hole? Only time will tell.
The Party leadership is divided about throwing support to him, and those that do I'm guessing aren't enthusiastic about it. I doubt that he represents a new direction for the Republican Party. In fact, I don't know what his direction is. I think it's his bravado that makes him viable to voters. I'm guessing other potential leaders in the party are coveting his style and flair, wondering how they could put it to good advantage. He may inspire more brashness in future candidates, but a change in political direction, I don't think is likely. I can't support that speculation, however. I just think it.
Brashness is not a direction in policy. It's a personality quirk, but it does seem like something that is gaining strength among Republican candidates, because in the end, it works. I first noticed it years ago in conservative talk radio, and then it began to widen with actual politicians mimicking the wild style of Rush Limbaugh. Sara Palin and Michelle Bachman made fortunes from it, and Trump just seems like the next step, but the party itself seems not to have changed it's direction, much.
But the question, "Where's this all going," does cross my mind.
Quote from: SGOS on October 14, 2016, 04:45:56 AM
The Party leadership is divided about throwing support to him, and those that do I'm guessing aren't enthusiastic about it. I doubt that he represents a new direction for the Republican Party. In fact, I don't know what his direction is. I think it's his bravado that makes him viable to voters. I'm guessing other potential leaders in the party are coveting his style and flair, wondering how they could put it to good advantage. He may inspire more brashness in future candidates, but a change in political direction, I don't think is likely. I can't support that speculation, however. I just think it.
Brashness is not a direction in policy. It's a personality quirk, but it does seem like something that is gaining strength among Republican candidates, because in the end, it works. I first noticed it years ago in conservative talk radio, and then it began to widen with actual politicians mimicking the wild style of Rush Limbaugh. Sara Palin and Michelle Bachman made fortunes from it, and Trump just seems like the next step, but the party itself seems not to have changed it's direction, much.
But the question, "Where's this all going," does cross my mind.
From what I've experienced, most Trump supporters don't actually support Trump; they just hate Hillary more. They think that she is dangerous and evil woman who evades the law, and therefor Trump is the better option and conveniently ignore all of his flaws. I never actually hear anything good said about Trump, just excuses for why he's not that bad compared to Hillary.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 10:47:55 AM
From what I've experienced, most Trump supporters don't actually support Trump; they just hate Hillary more. They think that she is dangerous and evil woman who evades the law, and therefor Trump is the better option and conveniently ignore all of his flaws. I never actually hear anything good said about Trump, just excuses for why he's not that bad compared to Hillary.
I know people who love Trump and are supporting him because they believe Trump:
is a Republican
will appoint conservative supreme court justices
is a businessman and will run the nation like a successful corporation
isn't a politician, is more sincere and is against "PC bullshit"
will stop the biased liberal media
will improve the economy by creating international trade deals that benefit the US
will create more jobs
will stop same-sex marriage and abortion
will stop illegal immigration
will be more aggressive in stopping terrorism
will put America first instead of capitulating to foreign governments as Obama has
upsets the status quo
will end Obamacare and make healthcare affordable
will create a more Christian country because "God will work though him."
Plus they hate Hillary with a hot burning passion. In a poll 41% of North Carolina Trump voters say they think Clinton is the devil to 42% who disagree with that sentiment and 17% who aren’t sure one way or the other. Plus 69% of Trump voters think that if Hillary Clinton wins the election it will be because it was rigged, to only 16% who think it would be because she got more vote than Trump.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/08/clinton-leads-in-nc-for-first-time-since-march.html
Quote from: GSOgymrat on October 14, 2016, 11:26:22 AM
I know people who love Trump and are supporting him because they believe Trump:
is a Republican
will appoint conservative supreme court justices
is a businessman and will run the nation like a successful corporation
isn't a politician, is more sincere and is against "PC bullshit"
will stop the biased liberal media
will improve the economy by creating international trade deals that benefit the US
will create more jobs
will stop same-sex marriage and abortion
will stop illegal immigration
will be more aggressive in stopping terrorism
will put America first instead of capitulating to foreign governments as Obama has
upsets the status quo
will create a more Christian country because "God will work though him."
Great list. I'd add to it "tells it like it is" which means that he spins a narrative that they largely accept as true.
According to Trump, the US has fallen on hard times. China is killing our economy, Mexico is sending scores of murderers and rapists over the border, the US - particularly its president - isn't respected by other countries, Obama founded ISIS, we're capitulating to our enemies, etc.
And in this distorted reality, Trump's perception of himself is the most distorted. He says the sorts of things about himself that North Koreans say about Kim Jong-un. I'm not kidding, that's how he actually talks about himself. He's the most knowledgeable and capable person in the world in a dizzying and ever-expanding array of fields (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/04/17-issues-that-donald-trump-knows-better-than-anyone-else-according-to-donald-trump/). He's also near-universally beloved, even by unexpected groups like Hispanics and "the blacks". So if he doesn't win, it's because the election was rigged, the debates and newspapers were biased against him, etc.
This sort of reality-free thinking is the most worrying thing about his campaign and his supporters. How are we supposed to identify and solve problems together with a huge chunk of the country living in la-la land?
The assumption that if half the country is wrong, means that half the country is right ... is a poor assumption. It is possible for both halves to be wrong, but for different reasons. Don't like people ... then you won't like politics.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 10:47:55 AM
From what I've experienced, most Trump supporters don't actually support Trump; they just hate Hillary more. They think that she is dangerous and evil woman who evades the law, and therefor Trump is the better option and conveniently ignore all of his flaws. I never actually hear anything good said about Trump, just excuses for why he's not that bad compared to Hillary.
It's possible this may be something that is happening as of late to some extent, because at some point, even some republicans are bound to realize Trump isn't playing with a full deck, at least with a political full deck. But the last time I watched clips of reporters interviewing people (back during the primary elections), I didn't hear any "lesser of two evils" comparisons from anyone that I remember. People were enthusiastically fawning over him, and this was the primary elections, where they were comparing him to other Republicans. Hillary was most likely going to be a part of the picture later, although she wasn't an official factor yet. Back then, what I saw seemed like gushing adoration for Trump.
It looks to me like Trump has finally found the key to torpedoing his own campaign.
Mission accomplished.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 14, 2016, 05:46:59 PM
It looks to me like Trump has finally found the key to torpedoing his own campaign.
Every election offers something of interest. But I've got to tell you this one is by far the strangest. With the current Trump scandal, I am almost to the point of not believing what I'm watching, not because the women are suddenly coming out of the closet and being so graphic. Nothing to see there. Politicians get wiped out in sex scandals even more than televangelists. But Trump's responses are bewildering. Not as bewildering as they could have been before I got so used to Trump bewildering me about everything else. His latest tactic when a woman accuses him of sexual assault, is to respond by more or less rating their attractiveness: "I wouldn't assault her. She's too ugly," which more or less implies, "I only assault the good looking ones." The media refers to it as groping, not sexual assault. But Trump isn't a common ordinary groper. He is discriminating groper who doesn't grope just anyone. He takes his time, looks them over and then gropes them when they're least expecting it. I don't know if he offers to buy them a drink afterwards. Maybe he leaves his business card, but the ladies seem to remember him.
Trump has 3 strategies when attacked.
The first and mildest is to criticize groups or individuals and then say he loves them. As in something like "the Mexicans send us their word people but, hey, I love them".
The 2nd level is to say he is better than anyone, but Obama, he's a Kenyan. He has proof. Not one of us, but he's OK, I love him. The "I love him/them" after an insult is a standard Trumpism.
The 3rd is to offer to provide evidence and then claim the claim as evidence. That's the most annoying part. Today at a lunchtime speech he denied the claims of all the women who said he assaulted them and could prove it. Then later in the day, he referred to his earlier "evidence" proving that they were wrong. He turns a claim in one speech into "proof" in the next.
His supporters went wild because he referenced "proof? They were thrilled to hear of "proof". And he hadn't given any.
Dimes to donuts that half his supporters think the Earth is only 6,000 years old and humans co-existed with dinosaurs.
Donald Trump Assails His Accusers as Liars, and Unattractive (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?emc=edit_th_20161015&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60854848)
"Obviously this man is a disinformation agent planted by the Clinton Klan."
Quote from: Cavebear on October 15, 2016, 07:02:36 AM
The 3rd is to offer to provide evidence and then claim the claim as evidence. That's the most annoying part. Today at a lunchtime speech he denied the claims of all the women who said he assaulted them and could prove it. Then later in the day, he referred to his earlier "evidence" proving that they were wrong. He turns a claim in one speech into "proof" in the next.
LOL I hadn't caught that yet, I'll keep an eye open. When you described that, it seemed like a tactic I've seen before. OK, I think I know why it's so familiar. Referencing the Bible, and "claiming the Biblical claim is evidence for the claim" is a absurdly common theist tactic.
Trump just adds another layer of absurdity by referencing himself.
Right ON!
For a Republican, an assertion is proof, and a repeated assertion is truth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/
Hillary ahead by 11 points today. Trump staggers into a corner as the ref gives him a standing eight. Trump is on his feet again swinging wildly and shouting the fight is rigged.
This is more than I can take. I hate seeing a he-man that can grab women by the pussy whenever he wants getting the shit kicked out of him by an old lady. Guys, we've got to get together and support our own, or the women will take over and get all the good jobs.
One thing that bothers me is that Trump wants his followers/thugs to closely monitor the voting places so that nothing wrong takes place. I hope this does not actually happen. It could lead to a violent day.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 16, 2016, 07:05:08 PM
One thing that bothers me is that Trump wants his followers/thugs to closely monitor the voting places so that nothing wrong takes place. I hope this does not actually happen. It could lead to a violent day.
That's why I plan on voting early. Plus, I hate peop...I mean crowds. Yep, just crowds. Nothing misanthropic about that, right? I love people. Nobody loves people more than me. The daily dormant periods, the constantly growing hair and nails, and the skin oils smeared on every surface they come into contact with. It's revul...I love it. And as a fellow human, I feel very much at ease among fellow humans. *nervous sweat*
It's a conspiracy I tell ya! A conspiracy! HRC planted trumpster fire in the gop to make sure he would lose. He's on the take and a hillaryshill!
Wouldn't that just be icing on the cake?
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 16, 2016, 07:39:36 PM
That's why I plan on voting early. Plus, I hate peop...I mean crowds. Yep, just crowds. Nothing misanthropic about that, right? I love people. Nobody loves people more than me. The daily dormant periods, the constantly growing hair and nails, and the skin oils smeared on every surface they come into contact with. It's revul...I love it. And as a fellow human, I feel very much at ease among fellow humans. *nervous sweat*
I vote by mail so that I don't have to stand in line amongst the great unwas..............er, people. I too, love crowds!
Quote from: Baruch on October 13, 2016, 08:46:32 PM
But will Trump suck the other Republicans into the vortex of his Black Hole? Only time will tell.
One hopes. The only way to break the hold that the Teabaggers and the Talebangelicals have over the GOP is for them to keep losing elections at the national level. They're always going to win at certain local levels.
I would like nothing more than for this election to be an extinction-level event for the Republican Party.
Quote from: Atheon on October 18, 2016, 08:59:19 AM
I would like nothing more than for this election to be an extinction-level event for the Republican Party.
Then two things would happen.
1. An actual opposition party would replace the Republican Party.
2. The Democratic Party would fracture and fall next.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 18, 2016, 11:49:11 AM
Then two things would happen.
1. An actual opposition party would replace the Republican Party.
2. The Democratic Party would fracture and fall next.
Neither of which is necessarily a bad thing.
Quote from: Atheon on October 18, 2016, 08:59:19 AM
I would like nothing more than for this election to be an extinction-level event for the Republican Party.
I'll settle for it just breaking the hold of the teabaggers and Talebangelicals over them.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 18, 2016, 11:49:11 AM
Then two things would happen.
1. An actual opposition party would replace the Republican Party.
2. The Democratic Party would fracture and fall next.
Exactly what I'd like to see. Hopefully with the bigots and the Religious Reich being rejected by all.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 18, 2016, 11:49:11 AMThen two things would happen.
1. An actual opposition party would replace the Republican Party.
2. The Democratic Party would fracture and fall next.
Either would be nice. We could have the emergence of an actually leftist Democratic party opposed by a center-right Republican party, which would be a new experience for us. We could have status quo centrist Dems versus "radical" reformist Dems. Hell, we could even have the Dems versus the Libertarians, dare to dream. Just about anything would be better than endless culture wars and science denialism of the past 20 or so years. We have plenty of serious, tangible problems in this country and we've been waging war over evolution, stem cells, homosexuality, and now bathrooms. The sooner we can put that to bed, the better.
At least one near miss ... Hillary had three people in Seattle on her VP short list ... Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and the Schultz guy who founded Starbucks. Glad she raised Kaine ... even if the Bible Belt can't forgive her ;-) But I had hoped Trump would be more Abel.
Quote from: Baruch on October 19, 2016, 12:19:35 AM
At least one near miss ... Hillary had three people in Seattle on her VP short list ... Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and the Schultz guy who founded Starbucks. Glad she raised Kaine ... even if the Bible Belt can't forgive her ;-) But I had hoped Trump would be more Abel.
In the early days of a campaign, the staff is expected to provide a creative and long list of possible VPs. That gets shortened very fast. The staff did it's job, the candidate shortened it fast, both did what was expected of them.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 19, 2016, 04:00:21 AM
In the early days of a campaign, the staff is expected to provide a creative and long list of possible VPs. That gets shortened very fast. The staff did it's job, the candidate shortened it fast, both did what was expected of them.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? The staff I expect are hideous syncophants. The candidate I expect to be like Cuthulhu. Again the metaphor of Sauron and orcs is apt. For example, I am so glad George H W did such a good job with his pick, and George W ... it was pure genius for the hideous syncophant to suggest himself for VP!
Interesting theory.
Trump's bullsh*t: Why his supporters don't care that he's lying
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/17/technology/donald-trump-deception/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are seen as equally trustworthy by the public, and yet Trump makes false statements almost four times as often than Clinton.
How is this possible?
I study deception and trust and am frequently asked this question, given that fact checkers rate Trump's statements as entirely false 52% of the time compared to Clinton's 12%.
There are several possible explanations. One is that we like and trust people who look like we do, an effect known as homophily. This also allows us to discount or ignore things that we might otherwise not.
That could explain why so many white men support Trump despite his persistent falsehoods.
The two candidates also have distinctly different communication styles. Trump speaks in a direct manner, with simple words and sentences, a style that comes across as authentic and trustworthy. Clinton speaks more cautiously, qualifying her statements and using more complex sentences, a style that leads people to believe she is hiding something even when she isn't.
But neither of these explanations fully account for why Trump's more frequent lies don't affect his trustworthiness more. One explanation is that this isn't really about lying, but about bullshit. In his book On Bullshit, Harry Frankfurt distinguished between the two by noting that to lie, one has to purposely hide the truth from others. A bullshit artist isn't concerned with the truth, but instead makes things up to suit his purpose. He doesn't care if the things he says describe reality accurately. When the fisherman says that the fish was this big, with his hands wide apart, the actual size of the fish isn't what's important, it's the entertainment of the listeners.
The idea that Trump's false statements are bullshit can help explain why his supporters don't care that fact checkers say he's lying.
For example, Trump has said that he'll build a wall across America and make Mexico pay. If that's bullshit, Trump doesn't need to care about the feasibility or what the true cost might be -- and neither do his supporters. What's important is the message of stopping illegal immigration. Or when Trump makes false claims about the trade deficit or the unemployment rate, the reality is less important than his supporters' sense that the economy is leaving them behind. When Trump says that crime is up and you'll get shot walking in urban centers, the reality is less important than his message of law and order.
Frankfurt emphasizes that people bullshit when they speak about topics that they are not well-versed in or when the facts don't line up with the overall message. Trump has been upfront about his outsider status and his lack of debate prep and knowledge on government policy. The fact that he responds to complex topics with bullshit is perhaps not surprising. This argument maps nicely onto a recent piece in The Atlantic about Trump and his supporters versus the media: The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.
But this is not an argument to explain away the seriousness of Trump's false statements. On the contrary. The bullshit artist may or may not know the truth but doesn't care about it either way. As Frankfurt writes, "bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies are." At least with a liar, you can present evidence to the contrary. The bullshitter doesn't care about facts. Now, as the debate around Trump's 2005 comments about groping women swirls, this issue is extremely important. If he is perceived as a bullshitter, engaging in harmless "locker room" banter, will the voters forgive his statements? The fact that many of his supporters are still on board seems to support this, but there are limits to how much voters are willing to put up with. Trump's standing in the polls has taken a nosedive.
And here's an amazing coincidence. A recent book cataloged all the synonyms for bullshit, and one of the oldest dates back to the 1400s. It originally referred to trickery and scamming, although its meaning has evolved to include general nonsense and insignificance. That word: trumpery.
Accuracy and factuality matters to me. So does competency and experience. When I consider Trump and Clinton as President and facing some difficult decision, no matter what scenario I imagine, I end up wanting Clinton there every single time.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 19, 2016, 11:08:18 AM
Accuracy and factuality matters to me. So does competency and experience. When I consider Trump and Clinton as President and facing some difficult decision, no matter what scenario I imagine, I end up wanting Clinton there every single time.
Pretty much. It's the proverbial "who do you want picking up the phone at 3am". Hillary will come to a decision - whether you agree with her direction or not, she would at least address the issue. Trump would start a tweetstorm of personal insults about whoever caused the call and then go back to bed, and in the morning claim there wasn't even a phone call in the first place.
Trump has said he won't accept the election results (assuming he doesn't win). That is treasonous. This could tear the GOP apart! And maybe even result in Trump's arrest.
Or it could be just bluster.
But whatever happens, it won't be good for the GOP.
Quote from: Atheon on October 19, 2016, 11:11:31 PM
Trump has said he won't accept the election results (assuming he doesn't win). That is treasonous. This could tear the GOP apart! And maybe even result in Trump's arrest.
Or it could be just bluster.
But whatever happens, it won't be good for the GOP.
He wouldn't commit when asked twice directly by Wallace. Coffin nails he pounded in himself from inside the coffin..- Rachel Maddow
He just doomed himself by not committing. Hilary will be the next POTUS.
Silly Lincoln supporters ... half the country still doesn't accept the election of 1860 ;-(
So Yankees ... y'all coming down for the fried chicken picnic? Leave your guns at home this time, y'hear?
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 14, 2016, 05:46:59 PM
It looks to me like Trump has finally found the key to torpedoing his own campaign.
Mission accomplished.
I'm really happy for him because he has been trying
so fucking hard to do that during his entire campaign!
There are some candidates who seem to work VERY HARD to destroy their chances of winning a Presidential campaign. As a political science major back in the 70s, I studied many Presidential campaigns and some were bizarre.
But none as bizarre and self-destructive as Trump's. And I say THAT without political bias. After 2 years of campaign analysis and applying it to later years, I thought no one would ever run a campaign as poorly as Dukakis (who I favored politically). But compared to Trump, Dukakis was a genius.
Well OK, Jimmy Carter beating at a swimming rabbit near his canoe wasn't the greatest move ever, but that wasn't a campaign strategy.
I supported Dukakis too ... and then couldn't believe the "tank commander" video that made him look like a fool.
Howard Dean destroyed himself with a scream ... he didn't even get the stupid T-shirt.
Presidential candidates have to be the right kind of ridiculous .. look like George Washington ... with powdered wig and wood/ivory dentures. Or the Uncle Sam caricature.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 22, 2016, 08:29:56 AM
There are some candidates who seem to work VERY HARD to destroy their chances of winning a Presidential campaign. But none as bizarre and self-destructive as Trump's.
He's an interesting case study. To me that's the thing that draws my attention. I don't dislike him. I'm not afraid of him. But I can't not think about him. I find him fascinating to watch in the way one would watch the exhibits at a freak show. And I think more about the dynamics that skyrocketed him to this point, only to seem to fail, than to be angry or fearful. It's an interesting historical quirk, perhaps a symptom of the times. I think the right word is a phenomenon. Here is a guy that is unfit for president, yet he beat out a "clown car" of heavyweights in his own party. I think Trump is real, or as the saying goes, "He wears it all on his sleeve." He's good at being real (as self destructive as his realness is in the political arena).
But his presence in the election campaign says something about our country. You can't get this far without appealing to a very large, huge, and potentially powerful subgroup of society. And while Trump doesn't scare me, that subgroup does.
Quote from: Baruch on October 22, 2016, 08:53:13 AM
I supported Dukakis too ... and then couldn't believe the "tank commander" video that made him look like a fool.
Howard Dean destroyed himself with a scream ... he didn't even get the stupid T-shirt.
Dukakis made the critical error of going on vacation in the midst of the campaign, allowing the Republicans to spread their lies and propaganda with nobody to counter the attacks. (And his tank commercial didn't help.) I still voted for him; after all, his opponent was a Republican.
Bill Clinton set up a "rapid response team" to immediately debunk the Republican lies before they had time to fester in people's minds. That was one part of his winning strategy. He also unleashed James Carville as his attack dog, who got in a lot of air time. (Where was Carville during the Gore campaign? Where was Gore's rapid response team?)
Howard Dean didn't destroy himself; the media destroyed him. For an enthusiastic yell, like people do. I still puzzle over it.
Yes, it it the subgroup of Trump supporters that scares me. Its almost like the election of 1856, where too few suspected what was to come...
Quote from: Atheon on October 22, 2016, 10:24:25 AM
Howard Dean didn't destroy himself; the media destroyed him. For an enthusiastic yell, like people do. I still puzzle over it.
That one perplexed me too. I saw it when it happened, and I remember thinking it was a tad over enthusiastic, but not something worth focusing on. And I was surprised by the effect it ended up having.
Quote from: SGOS on October 22, 2016, 10:40:19 AM
That one perplexed me too. I saw it when it happened, and I remember thinking it was a tad over enthusiastic, but not something worth focusing on. And I was surprised by the effect it ended up having.
Especially since at the time, the main moaning in the media was that none of the candidates had any personality. And as soon as one showed a genuine human reaction to a moment of joy, they crushed him essentially for displaying... personality.
That's like the way they treat Hillary Clinton. Sometimes they say she's too unemotional, but when she shows emotion, suddenly she's criticized for being too emotional.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 22, 2016, 10:26:40 AM
Yes, it it the subgroup of Trump supporters that scares me. Its almost like the election of 1856, where too few suspected what was to come...
Ah, but the South was right ... Death To New England! Puritan Scum!
Quote from: SGOS on October 22, 2016, 09:50:54 AM
He's an interesting case study. To me that's the thing that draws my attention. I don't dislike him. I'm not afraid of him. But I can't not think about him. I find him fascinating to watch in the way one would watch the exhibits at a freak show. And I think more about the dynamics that skyrocketed him to this point, only to seem to fail, than to be angry or fearful. It's an interesting historical quirk, perhaps a symptom of the times. I think the right word is a phenomenon. Here is a guy that is unfit for president, yet he beat out a "clown car" of heavyweights in his own party. I think Trump is real, or as the saying goes, "He wears it all on his sleeve." He's good at being real (as self destructive as his realness is in the political arena).
But his presence in the election campaign says something about our country. You can't get this far without appealing to a very large, huge, and potentially powerful subgroup of society. And while Trump doesn't scare me, that subgroup does.
So a B-movie actor from California didn't say to you ... beginning of the end?
Quote from: Atheon on October 22, 2016, 11:40:27 AM
That's like the way they treat Hillary Clinton. Sometimes they say she's too unemotional, but when she shows emotion, suddenly she's criticized for being too emotional.
Standard "double standard". Probably every female leader has this chip on their shoulder (put there by men).
Quote from: trdsf on October 22, 2016, 11:00:57 AM
Especially since at the time, the main moaning in the media was that none of the candidates had any personality. And as soon as one showed a genuine human reaction to a moment of joy, they crushed him essentially for displaying... personality.
Ah, but the Media isn't biased ... you are a tin foil hat ... they are the entirely neutral 4th branch of government.
I will say this ... a lot of people are going to be retracting a lot of negative comments when Trump's campaign is over and he goes back to being a Democrat.
No, they won't. The American Electorate's memory is about 15 minutes long, tops.
No, he won't be a Democrat, either. He will just be the self-absorbed crazy (several unprintable adjectives) person he always has been...
Trump is more like an independent voter. He registered as a Democrat in 2001, and then as a Republican in 2009. Before 2001, he was a Republican.
http://www.programmerinterview.com/index.php/assortment/is-donald-trump-a-republican/
Wasn't Trump a member of the Reform Party for a spell?
Quote from: Atheon on October 23, 2016, 10:13:59 AM
Wasn't Trump a member of the Reform Party for a spell?
Yes, I read somewhere that he actually sought the nomination for President of the Reform Party, but withdrew early on.
Denial is definitely on the rise. Give it a few years and we'll see a large group of people claiming that Trump never ran for president at all and was only put in place by 'the Clinton war machine' by Clinton central casting and every nasty word ever uttered by Trump came directly from Hillary Clinton. This line of reasoning has already been put out there on Facebook and other forms of social media.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 22, 2016, 07:32:34 PMI will say this ... a lot of people are going to be retracting a lot of negative comments when Trump's campaign is over and he goes back to being a Democrat.
Nope. He said what he said and proposed what he proposed, so his damaged reputation is damaged for good. He was kind of a dick back then too, there just wasn't as much of a spotlight on him then.
I suspect that not long after Clinton takes office and does something widely disagreeable, you'll reference posts praising Clinton and ask the posters if they regret their support. I'd be extremely surprised if you didn't.
I'll preemptively answer that question in advance: I think that Clinton is the only remaining realistic option for those of us who don't want a Supreme Court stacked with Scalia clones. I don't agree with her 100%, and obviously, not all criticisms of her are baseless, but she has a decent platform and she seems capable enough to serve as President - a rare quality these days. So no, I'm not planning on regretting my vote.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 23, 2016, 02:05:58 PM
Nope. He said what he said and proposed what he proposed, so his damaged reputation is damaged for good. He was kind of a dick back then too, there just wasn't as much of a spotlight on him then.
I suspect that not long after Clinton takes office and does something widely disagreeable, you'll reference posts praising Clinton and ask the posters if they regret their support. I'd be extremely surprised if you didn't.
I'll preemptively answer that question in advance: I think that Clinton is the only remaining realistic option for those of us who don't want a Supreme Court stacked with Scalia clones. I don't agree with her 100%, and obviously, not all criticisms of her are baseless, but she has a decent platform and she seems capable enough to serve as President - a rare quality these days. So no, I'm not planning on regretting my vote.
^This. Yep, yep and yep!
Ideologues will never suffer regret ... there are still Russians who praise Communism.
I'm going to be completely honest... The more I research Clinton, the more I regret it.
It makes me realise how stupid the people who act like she is the great Satan are behaving...
People magnify themselves, by the size of the opponents they claim to be opposing. Some people think they are action heroes from a video game.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 23, 2016, 02:05:58 PMNope. He said what he said and proposed what he proposed, so his damaged reputation is damaged for good. He was kind of a dick back then too, there just wasn't as much of a spotlight on him then.
Which is why, when he goes back to the party of Clinton and Kennedy, he will fit in very well and people will have to either forget (which they do so easily) or eat their words (which they never do).
If Trump turned Democrat, that would be something, although I'm pretty sure he would still be Trump. I would think Democrats should be worried that he might bring his plague to the Party. I doubt they want him. A few, perhaps. There's always a few.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 30, 2016, 01:07:42 PM
I'm still hoping for a third party victory. But I'd take Hillary over Trump any day.
The probability of a third party victory is essentially zero.
But Hillary is 1000 times preferable to Trump.
Not to mention that nobody seems to be able to articulate just what it is they expect from a 3rd party AS IF just being a 3rd party is great just because of the number 3. Tell me what you expect from a 3rd party and I can almost guarantee you'll be disappointed.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 24, 2016, 01:03:57 PM
Not to mention that nobody seems to be able to articulate just what it is they expect from a 3rd party AS IF just being a 3rd party is great just because of the number 3. Tell me what you expect from a 3rd party and I can almost guarantee you'll be disappointed.
I expect a 3rd party to lie, just like the 1st and 2nd parties do. So disappointment is a sure thing.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 24, 2016, 01:03:57 PM
Not to mention that nobody seems to be able to articulate just what it is they expect from a 3rd party AS IF just being a 3rd party is great just because of the number 3. Tell me what you expect from a 3rd party and I can almost guarantee you'll be disappointed.
Third parties mostly fail because they can't create a national structure. If half of them could get together, they might accomplish something. But they wont.
Suppose a 3rd party candidate DID win the Presidency. You've seen how the Re pubs adopted a "just say 'no' to Obama"? Well both parties would do that to a 3rd party person.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 26, 2016, 02:01:15 AM
Suppose a 3rd party candidate DID win the Presidency. You've seen how the Re pubs adopted a "just say 'no' to Obama"? Well both parties would do that to a 3rd party person.
The only solution would seem to be to vote Republican.
No, the rational decision would be to have a functional government. Haven't we had enough of governmental blockage of important issues.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a full Supreme Court, infrastructure bills, tax reforms to clear out the loopholes, and some sense that the world thinks we can function?
Quote from: Cavebear on October 26, 2016, 09:58:40 AMNo, the rational decision would be to have a functional government. Haven't we had enough of governmental blockage of important issues.
Yeah, isn't it great how all our attempts to intervene in foreign countries have been completely and utterly blocked? We haven't bombed anyone the entire 8 years of Obama.
For those who are interested, Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan discuss Clinton and Trump and the lesser of two evils argument. Sam Harris has received a lot of criticism from his followers for supporting Clinton over Trump. They spend about ninety minutes of the podcast discussing why Clinton is a bad choice for POTUS and then spend another hour describing why Trump is exponentially worse.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-lesser-evil
Quote from: Cavebear on October 26, 2016, 02:01:15 AMThird parties mostly fail because they can't create a national structure. If half of them could get together, they might accomplish something. But they wont.
A lot of it is the US's electoral system. Let's say there's a wildly popular 3rd party presidential candidate who's polling at around 30% nationally. Come election day, he or she only gets a couple states, if that. Count up the electoral vote, and it's pitiful. That's because 30% of a state's voters doesn't amount to jack when someone else gets 40%. And I'd imagine it's especially frustrating for Republican voters in solidly blue states and vice versa.
If we had proportional voting system, that'd be different. A third party with 30% support could win 30% of the seats. One particularly interesting model is single-transferable vote, because it eliminates the spoiler effect. Here's how it works: you pick your preferred candidate and a 2nd choice as a backup. If your preferred candidate loses, your vote goes to your 2nd choice. For example, Jill Stein could be my preferred candidate and Hillary Clinton could be the 2nd choice. After the ballots are counted, if Jill Stein's totals come up short, my vote goes to Clinton. That way, I could vote 3rd party and not worry about inadvertently helping to elect Trump.
On New Atheists ... what would Hitchens think of Trump? I know what he thinks of the Clintons.
Quote from: Baruch on October 27, 2016, 10:39:21 PM
On New Atheists ... what would Hitchens think of Trump? I know what he thinks of the Clintons.
Harris mentioned that on the podcast because some of Harris' readers said they wish he had died instead of Hitchens because Hitchens would have supported Trump. Harris suspects even though Hitchens hated the Clintons Harris wasn't convinced Hitchens would support Trump.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on October 27, 2016, 10:09:49 PM
For those who are interested, Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan discuss Clinton and Trump and the lesser of two evils argument. Sam Harris has received a lot of criticism from his followers for supporting Clinton over Trump. They spend about ninety minutes of the podcast discussing why Clinton is a bad choice for POTUS and then spend another hour describing why Trump is exponentially worse.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-lesser-evil
Thanks! I haven't heard that one yet. I'll get right to it.
I've listened to his earlier podcasts where he mentions the election battle between Clinton and Trump and explains his rationale for supporting the former and opposing the latter. A while ago, I posted his Ask Me Anything #5 podcast here because it touches on that and in an especially comical way (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPstNaMn-T0).
If Harris put on drag ... to impersonate Hillary ... would that be empowering for transsexuals or a burlesque? One of the Princess Diana boys dressed up as a Nazi youth, and Prince Charles as dressed up as an Arab sheik ... what does that tell us about their politics? Harris must be a billionaire wanna-be.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on October 27, 2016, 10:09:49 PM
For those who are interested, Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan discuss Clinton and Trump and the lesser of two evils argument. Sam Harris has received a lot of criticism from his followers for supporting Clinton over Trump. They spend about ninety minutes of the podcast discussing why Clinton is a bad choice for POTUS and then spend another hour describing why Trump is exponentially worse.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-lesser-evil
I find it difficult to accept that Sam Harris is getting much disagreement from supporters about supporting Clinton. Clinton is rational, Trump is insane. And Harris always supports rational thinking.
QuoteAnd Harris always supports rational thinking.
Eeehhhh....
That was a bit ambiguous. *I* happen to admire Sam Harris for logic.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 12:49:37 AM
I find it difficult to accept that Sam Harris is getting much disagreement from supporters about supporting Clinton. Clinton is rational, Trump is insane. And Harris always supports rational thinking.
The impression I get is that many of his supporters like Harris because he criticizes Islam and they like Trump for the same reason. I too admire Harris for his clear, linear, rational thought process. Even if he comes to a conclusion I disagree with I fully understand how he came to that conclusion.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on October 27, 2016, 10:44:48 PM
Harris mentioned that on the podcast because some of Harris' readers said they wish he had died instead of Hitchens because Hitchens would have supported Trump. Harris suspects even though Hitchens hated the Clintons Harris wasn't convinced Hitchens would support Trump.
Hitchens matured in his political outlook in the final years of his life. He stopped being a kneejerk reactionary, and started applying the same skepticism he had for religion to right-wing politics. Had he lived, I think he would be disgusted by Trump, especially given his religious pandering.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on October 29, 2016, 03:06:25 AM
The impression I get is that many of his supporters like Harris because he criticizes Islam and they like Trump for the same reason. I too admire Harris for his clear, linear, rational thought process. Even if he comes to a conclusion I disagree with I fully understand how he came to that conclusion.
Harris criticizes all religions. I hesitate to say, but some are more critizable than others by some slight degrees.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 03:18:25 AM
Harris criticizes all religions. I hesitate to say, but some are more critizable than others by some slight degrees.
I don't hesitate to say that religions are not equivalent. Religions can have better or worse outcomes for people, which are often the result of different degrees of dogmatism. A religion that instructs a follower to refuse medical treatment for a child resulting in the child's death is worse than a faith that places the life of a child over doctrine. As Harris might say, religions are ideas, some ideas are better than others, and all ideas religious or secular are open to scrutiny.
Well, I think he would say that all religions are crazy, but some seem a bit crazier than others.
I guess the Republicans will have to find another rock under which to hide, since Trump's overturned the one they've been hiding under for 50 years or more.
GSOgymrat,
Sorry it took me so report back but I listened to the Sam Harris's Lesser Evil podcast where he and his guest give their thoughts on Clinton and Trump. I didn't enjoy it as much as many of his other forays into politics because a lot of it seemed to be the guest's subjective impression of Clinton and Trump rather than objective facts about them. There just wasn't a whole lot there where the rubber hits the road.
For example, one charge against both Clintons is that they're incredibly self-interested, money-grubbing people who seek personal power above all else. I can't fact-check that. Sam's guest might be right or he might be wrong in that accusation, but I've gotta plead ignorance there. And already I can hear the low rumble of partisans on both sides preparing to wage holy war on the grounds that the Clintons are either demonic or angelic. "Whattya mean you don't know she's a horrible human being! She's been in the public eye for decades and you don't know how much of a corrupt piece of garbage she is?! Look at my thousand Breitbart links!" And right after there's this: "Do you believe that alt right misogynist? He's completely off his rocker. Clinton is a saint and the only reason she has a bad rep is because of the vast right-wing conspiracy against her!" Uggh times 1000.
Granted, I've called Trump a self-aggrandizing maniac and I'm starting to regret that for the same reason. I don't know the guy. All I know about him are his media appearances. His carefully orchestrated media appearances. For all I know, that's an act and the real Trump is a very mild-mannered, low-key guy who created this larger than life image to get votes.
All in all, that podcast was alright. I recommend it for anyone who just wants an informal conversation about the candidates and doesn't plan on taking it too seriously.
For a more objective, analytical comparison, I recommend a couple videos that the vlogbrothers put out comparing actual policies: taxes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgicDQHbV3M) and healthcare (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3mYrOnq2Z4). Remember when elections were ostensibly about policy? Man, the times have changed.
GOP Silent After Jason Chaffetz Just Got Busted Using Personal Email
http://www.bluedotdaily.com/gop-silent-after-jason-chaffetz-just-got-busted-using-personal-email/
IOKWARDI (It's OK When A Republican Does It)
If we hold Clinton guilty, then we have to throw another 1/3rd of the govt in jail as well.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 04, 2016, 09:42:31 PM
If we hold Clinton guilty, then we have to throw another 1/3rd of the govt in jail as well.
Defenestrate all of them ... anarchism is necessary, from time to time ... please leave your name, address etc at Plac Du Concorde care of Monsieur Robespierre.
It isn't the private email that is the problem, it is mishandling government property (government emails). Nobody cares about Chelsea's wedding planner ... but people would care if there is pedophilia involving the Clintons on that laptop (and it doesn't matter if it ever went thru a government office, it could be purely private).
Quote from: Shiranu on November 04, 2016, 09:42:31 PM
If we hold Clinton guilty, then we have to throw another 1/3rd of the govt in jail as well.
Plenty of people want that.
Hell, I want that. Nothing could be better for this country than a thorough congressional cleansing.
Quote from: Nonsensei on November 05, 2016, 08:24:20 AM
Hell, I want that. Nothing could be better for this country than a thorough congressional cleansing.
I agree, but it has to be done by voting them out. Much of what we refer to as law breaking is really unethical behavior, in fact egregious unethical behavior. Most politicians walk close to the line, and this is usually approved by partisans. Even politicians actually breaking the law are supported by party fanatics. When we accuse them of breaking the law, a supporter will always be there to ask, "Can you prove it?" If you can't, he will dismiss the claim, along with the recognition that egregiously unethical behavior is what you are talking about.
The problem happens when the criminals decide what is legal or not. At some point the whole system become illegitimate and extra-legal means are implemented ... either by the authorities or against the authorities. When someone says the US is becoming a Third World country, I don't think they realize what they are saying ... they think it is going to be high tea. George Washington didn't vote King George out of office .. and today the sins against the public are much greater than anything King George ever did. American elite are like the administration of Caligula.
Well the question then becomes do you want someone who can effectively run a corrupt organization (us government) or someone completely clueless and easily manipulated by outside forces running the corrupt organization? It's the old lesser of the two evils argument of course, but think back to the two evils during Bush v Gore or Reagan v Carter. The greater of the evil often leaves horrible legacies that take decades to undo. The lesser of two evils is almost always a false equivalent argument so imagine you're chained to a wall and you get the choice of a quick bullet to the head or being starved to death over a few weeks or months. You don't get to choose to be unchained with the chance to get laid by the sexiest person alive. So for many people right now the choice is stark. One choice is blatant terrible and corrupt with complete incompetence to competent, but corrup. One will almost assuredly fuck things up for years to come, but the other will maybe fuck things up, but we're not sure..
Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2016, 12:01:56 PM
The problem happens when the criminals decide what is legal or not. At some point the whole system become illegitimate and extra-legal means are implemented ...
We have seen that happening over many years. It's a slow attrition if democracy, maybe speeding up as of late.
Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2016, 12:01:56 PM
When someone says the US is becoming a Third World country, I don't think they realize what they are saying ...
I usually think of bribery and corruption run rampant. We may be heading that way. Although these things are probably endemic throughout most forms of government.
Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2016, 12:01:56 PM
George Washington didn't vote King George out of office .. and today the sins against the public are much greater than anything King George ever did.
I don't know what King George was like. I only know George Washington's perception. I suspect it was more than just high taxes and over charging the colonies. I expect it had something to do with self serving needs, and why not if you can get away with it? The Declaration of Independence was not written by the entire nation, just a handful of influential types that were able to gain enough support. But I don't expect to ever know for sure.
What we accused King George of, was an idea later hijacked by Seattle businessmen to stick it to the newly purchased Territory of Alaska. Maybe similar in size and population to the original colonial rebels. While Seattle was not able to level taxes on the Territory, it was able to get the US congress to give them control over all trade that led to artificially inflated prices on exports, and abuse of the native population along with anyone else who moved there. Pretty much what we said King George was doing to us. And I can't imagine politicians in congress not making money off the deals too.
Quote from: SGOS on November 05, 2016, 01:25:19 PM
I usually think of bribery and corruption run rampant. We may be heading that way. Although these things are probably endemic throughout most forms of government.
Have you seen the way other countries do democracy?
Quote from: SGOS on November 05, 2016, 01:25:19 PM
I don't know what King George was like.
He was the guy that was getting you to pay less tax than Washington.
If you are against the elected government in general, then you have to unelect them locally. But no one likes to do that. A peaceful revolution requires national electoral vote here.
I can't vote against YOUR Representatives and Senators and you can't vote against mine. To change things, we would all have to agree on one party. Are you ready to do that?
How about revolution? With me as absolute dictator! :king:
Free beer for everyone! :letsparty:
My first act will be to abolish the Republican Party!
Quote from: Atheon on November 06, 2016, 01:11:15 AM
How about revolution? With me as absolute dictator! :king:
Free beer for everyone! :letsparty:
My first act will be to abolish the Republican Party!
Um, what brand of beer?
Quote from: Cavebear on November 06, 2016, 01:05:03 AM
If you are against the elected government in general, then you have to unelect them locally. But no one likes to do that. A peaceful revolution requires national electoral vote here.
I can't vote against YOUR Representatives and Senators and you can't vote against mine. To change things, we would all have to agree on one party. Are you ready to do that?
My first response was, "Yes, it's about time," because I see the Federal government as being more sane than state government, but on further consideration state power my afford as some necessary checks and balances. Although, at this time, state governments are often whacky and idiotic. You get to meet these low level politicians personally, and they are not impressive people, often dumber than some of the worst of the national politicians.
But that comparison may not always remain true. Right now, I'd take all power out of the hands of the states. Someday, I suppose I could regret it, although honestly, I think that's doubtful.
Quote from: Atheon on November 06, 2016, 01:11:15 AM
How about revolution? With me as absolute dictator! :king:
Free beer for everyone! :letsparty:
My first act will be to abolish the Republican Party!
...........UM...............beer????? Free ice cream? Now you're talking!!
Quote from: SGOS on November 06, 2016, 09:13:35 AM
My first response was, "Yes, it's about time," because I see the Federal government as being more sane than state government, but on further consideration state power my afford as some necessary checks and balances. Although, at this time, state governments are often whacky and idiotic. You get to meet these low level politicians personally, and they are not impressive people, often dumber than some of the worst of the national politicians.
But that comparison may not always remain true. Right now, I'd take all power out of the hands of the states. Someday, I suppose I could regret it, although honestly, I think that's doubtful.
The state governments that can't deficit spend are OK. North Dakota for example is one of the best run states in the US, and they have a fair and safe state banking system. The problem with taking power from the states is ... it is very hard to give it back.
A science minded conservative explains why he refuses to support Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQriX7NIgig
Science folks should vote only for science folks (divide and conquer special interest politics) ... but they can't because academics are too jealous of each other, they would each vote for themselves ... think Sheldon Cooper on the campaign trail ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2016, 06:57:31 AM
Science folks should vote only for science folks (divide and conquer special interest politics) ... but they can't because academics are too jealous of each other, they would each vote for themselves ... think Sheldon Cooper on the campaign trail ;-)
Science doesn't mix with religion, and it doesn't mix with politics. Unless your Deepak Chopra. Well, it does mix with politics, but it's more like an unwanted contaminant in the test tube.
Quote from: SGOS on November 07, 2016, 08:51:43 AM
Science doesn't mix with religion, and it doesn't mix with politics. Unless your Deepak Chopra. Well, it does mix with politics, but it's more like an unwanted contaminant in the test tube.
Senator Proxmire would agree.
The study grants, where the government pays a biologist to bash monkeys in the head, to study brain trauma ... they should have used Senators ;-)
Trump: started his campaign with bigotry, ending his campaign with bigotry.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/donald-trump-minnesota-somali-migrants-isis
America started with evil, will end with evil.
Quote from: Atheon on November 07, 2016, 06:45:11 PM
Trump: started his campaign with bigotry, ending his campaign with bigotry.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/donald-trump-minnesota-somali-migrants-isis
Man, even after having his twitter taken away by staffers (and this from a guy who wants to be entrusted with the nuclear launch codes), he's still making a fool of himself. Eh, might as well let him. Every time he opens his mouth, Clinton gets 100 more votes.
Also, I think I've figured out how his tell. Whenever he uses superlatives or uses "some people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word)" to give a claim an air of authority without being specific, he's definitely lying. Some people say that triangles have three sides, some people also say that the moon is made out of cheese.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 31, 2016, 04:03:49 PM
As that world famous philosopher said--It ain't over 'til it's over!
And as Carvell said--Campaign? What campaign; he doesn't have one.
Sadly, he did.
On a practical note, this is the best presidency money could buy.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 09, 2016, 01:42:13 PM
On a practical note, this is the best presidency money could buy.
I thought that was in 2012 ... with 1 billion for Obama alone ;-(
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 09, 2016, 01:42:13 PM
On a practical note, this is the best presidency money could buy.
The winner always is judged to have had a genius strategy. Even if he didn't. Sometimes no one knows what will work until afterwards.
I will not be surprised if some day (and hopefully before the Electoral College meets next month) it's revealed that Russia was hacking our voting machines.
Funny how fast "The elections are rigged!" became "open and fair election". That fucking asshole is NOT my president, and I will give him all the respect and support his party gave President Obama for the last eight years.
Quote from: trdsf on November 11, 2016, 07:42:29 PM
I will not be surprised if some day (and hopefully before the Electoral College meets next month) it's revealed that Russia was hacking our voting machines.
Funny how fast "The elections are rigged!" became "open and fair election". That fucking asshole is NOT my president, and I will give him all the respect and support his party gave President Obama for the last eight years.
So you are also opting for the Liberal version of Strom Thurmond? This is why the US should force the metro areas outside of the US boundary ... would take a bit of gerrymandering though ;-)
Quote from: trdsf on November 11, 2016, 07:42:29 PM
I will not be surprised if some day (and hopefully before the Electoral College meets next month) it's revealed that Russia was hacking our voting machines.
Funny how fast "The elections are rigged!" became "open and fair election". That fucking asshole is NOT my president, and I will give him all the respect and support his party gave President Obama for the last eight years.
Tge voting machines can't be hacked. They are "air-gapped". Meaning they are connected to the internet. Mine weren't even computers.