Jump to content

"10 Things Trump Supporters Are Too Stupid To Realize"


Mitch Cronin

Recommended Posts

This is a worthwhile read as well. This campaign has probably changed American politics for a generation. The problem for Republicans will be getting the genie of diverse demographics back in the bottle. It's much easier said than done and even if they did evict thousands of illegal immigrants, it does nothing to change voting demographics because they don't vote. In fact, it may boost support for the Democrats even further. Unless they find a way to pull themselves back from their isolationist politics, the present Republican course may keep Democrats in the White House for a long, long time. If you can't beat Hillary Clinton, you have no one to blame but yourself. The only one who stole the election was you.

http://www.cbc.ca/interactives/longform/news/trump-2016-us-presidential-election-race-white-voters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 447
  • Created
  • Last Reply

From the 'You Can't Make This Stuff Up' File...

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/09/08/donald-trump-offers-nine-explanations-of-his-iraq-war-stance-in-13-minutes.html

Donald Trump offers nine explanations of his Iraq War stance in 13 minutes

Most of Trump’s explanations for his position on the war in 2002 and 2003 were dishonest, contradictory or both.

WASHINGTON—Donald Trump supported the invasion of Iraq. This is a matter of public record. But the presidential nominee with a frequent disregard for the truth has relentlessly insisted that he always opposed the invasion.

He did so again during a televised forum on NBC on Wednesday night. As usual, he was fact-checked by journalists. Unusually, he decided to respond at length.

It was dizzying.

Over the course of 13 minutes of a Thursday speech at a Cleveland school, Trump offered nine explanations and justifications for his position on the war in 2002 and 2003.

Most of them were false, contradictory or both. Even by the standards of presidential-campaign spin, this was a highly abnormal level of dishonesty, especially for a scripted speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Moyers seems to be a beacon of reason and restraint at a time when such an approach from media is in short supply. Trump is certainly selling papers and subscriptions...

The bendy Chris Wallace of Fox News tells us he's not going to "fact-check" during the debates and that it is up to the other debater to do so - he will be just the conduit.

Put another way, the Fox News moderator has signalled to Donald Trump that he has free-reign to lie even more than he did in the Lauer forum.

Talk about media interference in the debate outcome.

http://billmoyers.com/story/feeble-false-modesty-chris-wallace/

It will be crackling television if nothing else. Take a look at Chris Matthews interviewing Rudy Giuliani: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/08/things-just-got-very-very-heated-between-rudy-guiliani-and-chris-matthews/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw8&wpmm=1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly is the preferred course for a political candidate? Should one "be true to themself" and not seek to alter or conceal their personal characteristics? Or should the candidate, chameleon-like, assume the mantle most attractive to the audience ensuring at all times that all discourse is controlled and inoffensive to any demographic?

Of these alternatives, does someone like Trump not give the voter an "honest choice"? Unlike a Xmas present wrapped with festive paper, when one selects Trump they do so with the contents of the package revealed.

And were I a candidate like the second alternative, I would not use the word "Xmas" for fear of giving offence.

Putin, bare-chested astride a horse portrayed a picture of strength but also knew that the people accepted the vision as accurate.

Compare that with Dukakis ensconced on a tank.

Trump may appear as a "will o wisp" and as easy to pin down but many regard him as far less insidious than the alternative.

Or you could choose the independent; "What is Aleppo?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UpperDeck, I agree with the view that Donald Trump was true to himself and he captured the imagination of millions. By this standard, Bernie Sanders was just as 'true to himself', but agree or disagree, love or hate their views and policies, anyone can see the differences between the two men.

I also agree with the ancient homily about honesty being the best policy and Mr. Trump was, in that way, "honest". No longer.

The notion of integrity is at least in part, a sense of internal consistency and Mr. Trump is nothing if not consistent.

I agree with the point I believe you are making: - that the argument that Mr. Trump has integrity and therefore is qualified to be President is quite beside the point; the argument is now, "it is up to the American voters to see each candidate for who they are and for what they represent in terms of leadership."

Our "times" now conflate integrity and character. And naturally we like our bullies as long as they are on our side and as long as comeuppance happens to others. So I think some form of moderation, judgement or even intervention is in order, (which was perhaps James Madison's idea behind the Electoral College). I don't get the feeling that that is what the American voters are doing when assessing these two candidates, and that they just want it all over with and gone. In this scenario it is entirely possible that the American people could elect Trump by default - by buying, without thought, the snake oil from the barker stumping and selling from the back of a train. - by great, great numbers of voters not really seeing what is happening, and thinking through Mr. Trump's words and actions and what they may unleash. They just see someone who will stand up for them against ill-defined frustrations and even more poorly-defined threats.

The need for such a "protector" isn't hard to determine - it goes back to the 1970's, to economic policies that first began cutting people out of a multi-trillion-dollar economy, and in 2008, stole their houses, jobs, wages, pensions and futures while bankers got rich once again.

However, even as Trump is likely to lose, consider the following from the New York Times OpEd, September 09, 2016 by Lee Siegel:

Quote

. . . .

Mr. Trump seems to suffer from a manufacturing defect. Republican leaders seem to want to recall him as though he were a faulty airbag. And it’s unlikely that enough Americans will buy his marketing pitch for him to win in November.

Imagine, though, a different figure, someone with Mr. Trump’s callousness but without the thin skin, lack of self-control and fragile, oversize ego. Imagine, in other words, a demagogue who embodies the dynamics of America’s pervasive commercial atmosphere, but who is smart, cunning, self-aware and self-disciplined — so cunning that he would, say, embrace the parents of Capt. Humayun Khan with the slightest trace of a wink to his or her followers, and then, once elected, close the door to any Muslim who wished to immigrate to America. Imagine this same figure prefacing an insinuation that Mrs. Clinton be assassinated with a heartfelt declaration of her decency and good faith.

We had better prepare for such a person. In business, Mr. Trump might be called a beta test, or a “proof of concept.” To that end, he has already succeeded. Trumpism — not the political ideology rooted in xenophobia and nationalism, but the cynical worldview that sees politics, like everything, as a market to be conquered — is not going anywhere. - The Selling of Donald Trump, Lee Siegel, New York Times, September 09 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/10/opinion/campaign-stops/the-selling-of-donald-j-trump.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0

Character and a desire for morality is so passé. And, as American voters normalize honest-dishonesty on the way to November 8th by mistaking it for integrity, Mr Trump may yet produce a razor-thin vote. There may be those "checks and balances" but any such "morning-after" actions would distract and tie up the U.S. and its government. Removing a President is a destabilizing event, and we have North Korea rattling the earth with their bombs and rocket tests.

A chimerical personality is just fine in business because he/she is dealt with on a private, caveat-emptor basis.

Not so with our public representatives. Or, at least it isn't supposed to be. There are plenty of counterexamples for this.

Trump's qualities are valuable and they work effectively (in a neo-Darwinian manner), in American business culture.

I am quite aware that the following has many facets and is complex and difficult to summarize. Shortcomings acknowledged, it is not as though we hold politicians to a different standard simply because they are the public servants who we "hire" in an election. We expect politicians to adhere to higher standards of behaviour and character because of the power they alone possess that can harm ordinary people, the economy, and the country through a corruption of principles and self-agrandizement...of which there are plenty examples including both erstwhile candidates. Private, unelected tryannies, (giant corporations) also affect people, economies and countries often by buying their politicians but the notion of "Capitalism" itself, is dying, in numerous ways; - another time, another thread as we are dealing with a candidate who, should he be elected President, will continue to unleash the Alt-Right. (September 06th article in the Atlantic; links to other "Alt-Right" sites are provided in earlier posts).

The notion of democracy itself is now under active challenge, and from many quarters including the Alt-Right.

“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”

Is this the underlying principle of a strong, civilized, democratic country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hilary's health is in the spotlight in a big way today after her collapse yesterday and they're spinning it as pneumonia (lol).

From the symptoms displayed experts feel it's more than likely that Clinton has Parkinson's. If that diagnosis is actually made, her bid is instantly over. Has the diagnosis already been made and hidden, or is it being delayed to facilitate her ego?

Would any responsible person take a non-ambulatory patient with an active 'bacterial pneumonia' infection to her daughter's apartment where two small children including a newborn reside, or would a hospital be the more appropriate place for treatment? I mean, does Chelsea keep the kind of O2 system on hand that would be an automatic if Hilary's condition was as compromised as suggested?  

I'll bet Clinton was suffering from a Parkinson's related seizure and her daughter's home was the more convenient & private locale where recovery could be accomplished without the public being involved. Hilary is imho prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve her personal objective.

Parachuting 'Joe' in as a last chance candidate to replace Hilary will add a new and entertaining dynamic to the election; both Kings of the political gaff will be in competition.

Trump is favoured to win at 5:3.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi DEFCON;

Yes, I see the Clinton health matter uptick. It ain't over til it's over, but I expect the Trump campaign to pursue this aggressively.

It will be a shrill, take-no-prisoners campaign from here to November. What a shame for the United States to degrade itself so deeply before the free (and not-so-free) world. Russia's Putin must be salivating, seeing the crack in the door to Trump open wider. But there it is, in 3D-technicolor and 5.1 sound . . .

I've had my say here, probably too much, too often for most. This is a terrible choice to inflict upon the United States; my remarks concerning Trump and the Alt-Right stand. Thanks, I really do appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Hilary's health is in the spotlight in a big way today after her collapse yesterday and they're spinning it as pneumonia (lol).

From the symptoms displayed experts feel it's more than likely that Clinton has Parkinson's. If that diagnosis is actually made, her bid is instantly over. Has the diagnosis already been made and hidden, or is it being delayed to facilitate her ego?

Would any responsible person take a non-ambulatory patient with an active 'bacterial pneumonia' infection to her daughter's apartment where two small children including a newborn reside, or would a hospital be the more appropriate place for treatment? I mean, does Chelsea keep the kind of O2 system on hand that would be an automatic if Hilary's condition was as compromised as suggested?  

I'll bet Clinton was suffering from a Parkinson's related seizure and her daughter's home was the more convenient & private locale where recovery could be accomplished without the public being involved. Hilary is imho prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve her personal objective.

Parachuting 'Joe' in as a last chance candidate to replace Hilary will add a new and entertaining dynamic to the election; both Kings of the political gaff will be in competition.

Trump is favoured to win at 5:3.

 

I'm with you on this DEFCON.  I think the other shoe will drop shortly. The Democratic Party can not allow this to drag on any further. They need another candidate right now. The fact that they can't hide her health issue at the paltry few public outings she's been seen at is very telling. 

I doubt they'll allow Bernie to replace her either. 

What a mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Maverick said:

The Democratic Party can not allow this to drag on any further. They need another candidate right now......

I doubt they'll allow Bernie to replace her either. 

What a mess. 

 

 

From the "grasping at straws" department over at Democratic HQ: 

 

Michelle O. for Prez?  

 

Ticks a lot of boxes:  ethnic, female, continuity, young, healthy, easy on the eyes, etc...plus she'd have  access to a close-at-hand, knowledgeable advisor.

 

"What a mess" is right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one, at this juncture in time, can say with any certainty that Donald Trump will, or will not be successful in his run for the office of President of the USA.

People laughed at him in the beginning, then began deriding him as he defeated his Primary opponents one by one, and are now shocked and incredulous that he is the nominated Republican candidate.

Many Americans are completely disgusted and fed up with politicians who say only politically correct words in public in order to get elected to office. Now along comes this pretentious, egotistic, brash, vain and bombastic individual who is speaking the people’s language and using terms unfamiliar to the hustings. Many Americans may cringe at what they hear coming out of The Donald’s mouth but it would appear that many are thinking … “finally, here’s a guy who we don’t have to second-guess what he is really thinking … and I like what I’m hearing”.

The panic artists are in a frenzy thinking about this man having his “finger on the button”, and are threatening to pack their bags and leave the country if he is elected. It is an understatement to suggest that things will be “interesting” under a President Trump, but hopefully one can find some solace in the fact that the US President is not a one-man show. The checks and balances inherent in America’s democracy will no doubt be tested if challenged by a Trump administration.

On one level, I admire Trump for stepping up to the plate and taking on the Establishment; not many would have the courage let alone the resources to go down that road. His candidacy is very high risk for the American people but as most everyone knows, with high risk comes the possibility of high reward … or the alternative. On that level, for me at least, this contest is refreshing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your thoughts Don.

There's been some discussion across the media with respect to a replacement for Hilary should she not make it to the finish.

If I understand the election rules, a Party does not have any kind of Constitutional standing, which means alternates cannot be used as substitutes on the ballot; the Clinton / Kane ticket would apparently expire naturally upon Hilary's withdrawal.

Write-ins are allowed of course, but apparently only on the day the ballot is submitted, and then there's the fact that only 43 of the 50 States allow write-in candidates in the first place ...

 

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think it is far too early for the media (or anyone else) to anticipate replacement of Hillary or not making it to November 8th. We are seeing the short-strokes of a heavily-propagandized election process in which any hint of trouble for the other side, (both sides...), is writ yuge.

My approach is, "wait and see"; perhaps Hillary's health is a problem, perhaps not. Commentary is not knowledge. On Hillary's and Trump's health, all commentary is informed by politics, not medicine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Commentary' can also be based on observation and reason. Take for instance the blue sunglasses and note that no one else is wearing any.

Then consider the information in respect of those glasses and other symptomology as provided by medical authority.

 Pneumonia they would have us 'believe' ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi DEFCON;

Has Dr. Noel examined Ms. Clinton?

If not, then it is unprofessional for any doctor to comment on another's health when no examination has taken place.

 It is straightforward professional ethics and the need for those in relevant professions to stay out of politics because their work has been and is being used for political, not medical purposes.

It may very well be what everyone is claiming. Ms. Clinton's health, (as well as Mr. Trump's, who has yet to release anything) absolutely must be addressed and for Ms. Clinton and her team, clarified. That is required, as is the release of Mr. Trump's health records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO Doctors that appear on "news" shows like this are Quacks and hacks.  They get paid for this stuff and will sell sensationalism over facts.

Any Doctor that can diagnose Parkinsons without physical examination of the patient is a quack.  There are several diseases that look like parkinsons from the outside but are not.

He may be right, he may be wrong, he may be crazy but still a quack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Don

 

Just an FYI, but there's another video on Youtube published a day or so prior in which Dr. Noel begins by qualifying his 'professional opinion' very thoroughly before he goes on to offer his perspective on the symptomology displayed; he explicitly addresses the concerns you've raised Don. I find presentations like Dr. Noel's to be similar contextually to those we see when our colleagues, Sully for example, comment on aviation related matters.

I agree though, absolutely everything out there in respect of a candidate can and does become a form political fodder and professionals should respect certain 'boundaries', but in this instance, should the public blindly accept the word of a candidate that's well known for her misleading ways? I mean, she claims to be suffering from some kind of pneumonia, but at the same time, virtually every symptom displayed along with her deportment, skin tone, texture etc. and behaviour all soundly support a completely different conclusion?

Finally, none of my comments should be construed as an indication that I believe the opposition is any better off when it comes to the expression of truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to posting, I briefly considered the "Sully case", and in fact this forum where we comment on accidents well in advance of the facts because we may know the airplane, the routes, and weather etc.

But this is vastly different - our musings do not hold authority in the formal venues of aviation flight safety, even if they are spot on.

The formal process vets ideas, ensures correctness through established methods and forums and such things in research as peer-reviewed papers. Such processes are far too slow for television news, so there has to be different motivations for such "news", and of course we are well aware of what it is, for all candidates.

While I am anything but a fan of the academic world, I do know it can teach us about rigourous research methods and tests, even as the internet has diluted the concepts of "authority", "experience" and "expertise" in the trade for entertainment over knowledge.

Any pronouncement regarding someone's health by an MD who has not done the actual physical and the tests, is simply unprofessional, not only because of the breach of medical ethics involved but because he-she is speaking formally and authoratively on the future president's health and that demands exceptional standards and professionalism. The rest is just quackery, as saliently observed above.

The APA, (American Psychiatric Association) specifically stated that their members will not address, nor comment upon the mental health of the Republican candidate for president, period. Paid quacks reading tea-leaves cannot seem to resist the call of the cameras and it may sell both propaganda and advertising time but it isn't medicine.

We are still waiting for Mr. Trump's health and tax documents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump released his medical report to Dr. Oz on that show this afternoon; it's supposed to air tomorrow I think.

The release of personal tax information is not mandated by Law. Strategically speaking, everyone knows that doing so would only give the opposition material from which they could fashion irrelevant accusations intended only to distract Trump from delivering his message.

What effect would knowing how much, or how little Trump has paid in the way of taxes & charitable donations have on Americans that hold an opinion of the man similar to your own Don? Besides, I doubt Trump's taxes are of much interest to anyone that seeks the kind of change that is expected from a Trump Presidency. Supporters see Trump like they see every other American, they're all making every legitimate effort to contribute as little as possible to the coffers of the IRS. Trump has been audited frequently as well, which means he's operating in an above board fashion tax wise and in other ways too.  

I suspect, or is it expect that the release of the transcripts of the speeches Hilary was paid to give to the Wall Street gang would be fatal to her cause. Do you think she'll be releasing them soon?

Anyway, here is an interesting segment of a larger discussion on the topic of the write-in candidate, which can be found at  https://www.quora.com/In-a-US-Presidential-election-could-a-write-in-candidate-ever-actually-become-President

“Well, it’s not legally impossible, but… probably not. As Matt Gaiser pointed out below, only 43 of the 50 states allow write-in candidates for president, which starts the potential write-in candidate at a disadvantage. Assuming that hurdle can be cleared, the Electoral College is the problem. The write-in candidate would have to scramble to get slates of electors ready for all of the 43 states, so that those electors can vote for the write-in candidate when the Electoral College meets in December. If the write-in candidate did happen to win the popular vote, we’d be facing an interesting problem.

When we vote, we vote for electors, and not for the presidential candidates. Until as recently as the 1960s, some states actually listed the names of electors on the presidential ballots instead of the presidential candidates, so it was clear whom you were trusting to vote for the candidate you wanted to be the next president. Nowadays, when you check the box for the candidate you want, the system just counts your vote toward that candidate’s slate of electors. Those electors will then presumably go on to vote for their party’s presidential candidate, and they almost always do. (Those who don’t are called “faithless electors”. Some states allow this, while others will fine faithless electors, and possibly jail them. There’s no national standard.)

So if a write-in won a majority of electoral votes, who are the electors? If this write-in candidate won, say, California, that would be 55 votes for one person, so could that write-in candidate serve as all 55 electors? Could that person also be all 7 electors from Oregon? All 20 electors from Illinois? All 3 electors from Delaware? Aren’t these supposed to be different people? What happens with these multiple votes for one person?

The Constitution doesn’t address this, so it’s virgin territory. What we do know is that an elector cannot hold a federal office, so if one of the three current presidential candidates ran a write-in campaign, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton could serve as their own elector, while Bernie Sanders, a sitting US senator, could not. That still doesn’t address the question as to whether a write-in candidate could act as multiple electors. Selection of electors varies by state. In most states, they’re selected at the state party’s convention. While this has never been tested before, my feeling is that if a candidate is going for a write-in campaign, he or she would have to hold some state conventions, quick, in order to make sure electors are in place, just in case.

It’s difficult to find where the law is clear on this. Since this scenario is so unlikely, not a lot has been written about it, and lawmakers probably don’t feel the need to nail down the answer. But if a write-in candidate ever did gain steam, I’m sure there’d be plenty of writing about it, and quick. Since there’s no precedent for this happening, you can bet there would be plenty of vocal disagreement about how to proceed."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citing "not required by law" isn't relevant. Of course it isn't, but it's done as one set of many informal requirements, two of which are health report and taxes, and has been the case for decades, and it applies to all presidential candidates.

The release of transcripts to the authorities is also not required by law as no one is under indictment. 

History shows us that the release of documents into a formal process is what impeachment processes are for, if there is sufficient taste for such action, for either candidate, in the future. Study the Watergate process for more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I opined today, voting for president this time around is like choosing between herpes and the clap. Both are highly irritating and difficult to get rid of once inflicted. I'm even more glad I'm a Canadian right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...