"10 Things Trump Supporters Are Too Stupid To Realize"

[Don Hudson]

Hi DEFCON;

Quote

Being Canadian won't protect us from the misgivings of Trudeau and his crew.

For me, and perhaps for many, Trump is a "sea change", and not merely another candidate for president. The fact that something like him has emerged has less to do with who he is and what he says and does, than it does with the very successful emergence of the Tea Party, a sort-of rump parliament within the Republican Party, (which is currently on the ropes with an uncertain future), and things like Citizen's United etc. The "Alt-Right" first emerged in 2008 shortly after Obama was elected, followed by a "neo-Reactionary" movement, all of which appear to hold slightly different views on what we commonly label "the Right". These views have been around a long time, and up until their emergence, essentially both parties in the U.S. have been "variations of the left", (in re the Overton Window), the easiest-seen expression of which has been a "PC" culture*. This is much easier to see against the backdrop of a "Trump"; in fact Trump himself is not a conservative at all.

Trudeau is no such sea-change, not even close, and neither was Mr. Harper. "Distasteful" is contextual. While there may always be elements of what we might call the "extreme right" in Canada, as the last election clearly demonstrated, Canadians are not prepared to permit its evolution in their own country; the character of the country, the social & political milieu are not conducive to a Trump-like candidate, and we could say that about many other countries; -  at present he-she would not make it past the post.

Populism and Nativism are not new, but has found new expression in the "Trump" phenomenon. He expresses the "Get off my lawn...", animus many have towards those who are blamed (or at least targeted by politicians), for taking their jobs and wages where none of the other Republican candidates would go.

As such, the forces that such a candidate has marshalled and unleashed are not going to go away after a likely win by Clinton but what form they will take is of course, tea leaves.

The Electoral College, (not "Collage" as the Quora site spells it - I liked the site btw), numbers are still just not there for a Trump win, (Who Will Win the Presidency, NYT). Clinton has now a 76% chance of winning - it used to be 90% just under two months ago. But the point is made, that it is not the popular vote that will elect her. Trump must take Florida for a chance at winning. The graph at the bottom of that website is interesting to play with.

I have good friends who are 100% certain that Trump will win. We discuss such things from our particular positions in an amicable way, similar to what we're doing here, as Canadians we don't have a dog in the fight. I may lose my bet that Trump won't take part in the debates though.

With Hillary's health issues raised by the Trump campaign now properly resolved by those who are qualified MDs and who have actually done the examination, the debate performance seems the only observable factor still in play. Kellyanne may have tamed the beast and if actually so and he actually listens and changes, that will weigh heavily in the race.

*There is "PC", then there is "common courtesy/respect" etc., and the line has blurred to the point where government doesn't even know that it is in the social engineering game.

[J.O.]

8 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Being Canadian won't protect us from the misgivings of Trudeau and his crew.

Same could be said for the "damage" left behind by most of his predecessors, including (and especially) the most recent one.

[DEFCON]

Good Day Don

I can appreciate the Left's need, or desire to take Hilary at her word, but I'll bet the kool-aid effect is wearing thin for even the most faithful of her congregation these days.

I question statements that suggest Hilary stands out from the crowd and is somehow appropriately qualified for the job. While I can agree that Hilary has been around, her resume contains little if anything more than fluff when it comes to listing her meaningful professional accomplishments.

I can only speak for myself, but as one of the 'Deplorables' I remain of the opinion that Hilary 'is' neurologically compromised in some serious way and is avoiding an official diagnosis, ego at work there, to avoid being removed from the race. She is purposely misleading the pack by employing certain medical reports as proof of fitness when the most important one, arguably, at least fails to address the specifics of the symptomology she has been displaying over a considerable period now. For instance, a CT of the head was presented as evidence of a physically sound brain, but everyone that knows something of the subject matter is aware that soft tissue defects are only imaged properly through MRI; the CT report provided by the Clinton campaign is useless in answer to questions related to the possibility she has permanent stroke / PD related brain damage.

It's really quite nuts I think to be watching a campaign like this unfold. Really, who'd believe we'd see a potential future President passing out from time-to-time while campaigning, but if that weren't bad enough, we see SS guys propping her up against supports to keep her upright, pictures that show them dragging her up steps, or into vehicles, never mind the medical minders that accompany her everywhere. Weird, almost comical yes, but the ill health an non - readiness of the candidate to do the job is apparent, uninspiring and may even be dangerous to the collective well-being.

Then there's Chelsea who said; "I've never seen my Mother this tired". If the pace is already too demanding for Hilary now, can you imagine her making out under the kind of pressure that comes with being President? It's like one physician stated; when the 3 am call comes, the President may well be incapacitated and unavailable. One of media's talking heads responded by gassing; 'that's okay though because Bill will be there' ... sheesh, and she gets to vote too!

Trudeau is connected genetically to an intelligent, clever and capable man, but the father's capability isn't transferred to a son, the kid's more like his mother anyway. What should, or can we expect from a part-time high school drama teacher come world leader?

The demographics of this Country have changed so substantially over my life and because voting Rights are so easy to acquire, I think it's safe to say that the national opinion no longer reflects the position of people that actually have history here; it's now more a reflection of belief systems etc. that have been freshly imported and transplanted here into the Canadian mosaic. In effect, Canada gave up its already multicultural Canadian soul in favour of the societal mush Trudeau the senior dumped on us. Anyone want to bet the legacy the kid leaves behind will be something history recalls in less than flattering ways? I think he's so unsuited for the position of Pm that even GWB looks more competent technically.

The Trump Presidency will impact upon Canada heavily and I think time will teach us that Harper would probably have been the wiser choice for us. Unfortunately, for me and other disaffected right-wingers, Harper proved to be a dictatorial dick and so, I didn't vote him this time out, but that's not to say I supported Little-T, or anyone else, I just gave up.

American politics have re-energized the sphere. The election of a President is a serious matter for sure and a solemn affair, but it's the unpredictable nature of Trump that's makes it kind of fun like again and I admit, the Trump effect got me to sit up and pay attention; I think everyone pretty much everywhere feels the same. While it may be fair to refer to Donald as a scary character, he alone deserves the credit for being the catalyst of political change and as such is totally responsible for the reinvigoration of the American electoral process. I'm hoping the weight of America will flow and influence the pathway this Country is following post election and helps to resolve the plague of f'd-up stuff killing our democracies and limiting freedom.

As I've said before, it's my opinion that while the Electoral College may have served the needs of Madison and a few that followed him, in the modern day and present circumstance it's been showing itself to be something of an antithesis to the concept of democracy, even in a Republic. We'll see where the College takes the American Democracy come November.

   

,  .   .

[mo32a]

Well Hillary could have been taken to Chelsea's apartment because of this?

 

A Presidential candidate collapses at a ceremony in NYC...and is shoved, semi-conscious, by SS into a van like a side of beef and rushed off...not to one of the many world-class hospitals and clinics nearby...but to her daughter's $11M apartment.

Sound odd? It did to me.

So I looked up a bit about Chelsea's new apt.

THE WHITMAN, 21 EAST 26TH STREET, 4 - FLATIRON DISTRICT, NEW YORK

Real estate listing on her apartment:  

http://www.elliman.com/new-york-city/the-whitman-21-east-26-street-4-manhattan-uehbvqr 

I discovered that it exactly shares an address with:

METROCARE HOME SERVICES, INC. 21 East 26th Street, 4th Fl New York, NY 10010

SAME address..       SAME Floor...          only One Apt. per floor. 

https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/09/13/chelsea-clintons-whitman-building-apartment-and-metrocare-home-services-share-same-address-same-floor-no-way-this-homecare-business-is-allowed-to-operate-inside-a-luxe-residential-building/

For a woman very secretive about her ambiguous medical conditions...who avoids hospitals like the plague, it occurred to me that when the Clinton's bought this incredibly expensive apt. for their daughter in 2013...they may have also purchased it with the intent of using it as a secret private medical treatment facility for Hillary to use during her anticipated campaign. 

To the press...it would only appear Hillary was just dropping in for a visit with her daughter...when, in reality, she is receiving medical treatment and controlled substances from private physicians and private pharmacists...on private property (no need for disclosure). 

If so, Chelsea's apt. served it's secret purpose flawlessly this Sunday. 

It makes sense that to establish a clandestine medical treatment facility in a residential apartment--one which is legally compliant with the controlled substances dispensing/stocking/delivery & shipping requirements...and one which is able to legally supply and treat a private patient with the drugs needed, one would also have to register the address as a medical treatment facility. 

In this case, I would assume the Clinton Foundation would be the controlling entity. 

A staff (and private) doctor or pharmacist would then be employed (Hillary has two) to legally treat the patient, practice medicine within the confines of the private residence...and dispense drugs to that private patient without any disclosure. 

This sham medical facility, while legally registered as a public care facility...would also have to be closed to the public in order to operate without any disclosure. 

THIS is exactly what appears to be taking place at 21 East 26th Street, 4th Fl., New York, NY. 

Comments?

State website:

https://profiles.health.ny.gov/home_care

Listed on Yelp:

Metrocare Home Services - Flatiron - New York, NY

 

[IFG]

2 hours ago, mo32a said:

.... In this case, I would assume the Clinton Foundation would be the controlling entity. 

A staff (and private) doctor or pharmacist would then be employed (Hillary has two) to legally treat the patient, practice medicine within the confines of the private residence...and dispense drugs to that private patient without any disclosure. 

This sham medical facility, while legally registered as a public care facility...would also have to be closed to the public in order to operate without any disclosure. 

THIS is exactly what appears to be taking place at 21 East 26th Street, 4th Fl., New York, NY. 

Comments?

 

SNOPES: False!  ( http://www.snopes.com/chelsea-clintons-apartment-is-actually-a-hospital/  )

 

On ‎2016‎-‎09‎-‎14 at 2:27 PM, DEFCON said:

.... 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.

          

SNOPES: Also false! ( http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-has-parkinsons-disease/  )

 

C/mon guys! Enough with this nut-bar Bull$#it from the right-wing echo-chamber!  There may, or may not be something to the issues that this nonsense pretends to illuminate. Time will tell, if telling is required, but trafficking in falsehoods tarnishes and disgraces the purveyor as much as it does the original author. Defcon, we've been down this sorry path before. Mo32a, no further "comments" warranted or deserved.

Cheers, IFG

 

[J.O.]

Wow. Just ... wow.

[Moon The Loon]

No problem. Vote for her alternative.

Makes one wish to bring back Nixon...

[DEFCON]

Thanks IFG

I appreciate your position, but I can't buy in to the Snopes analysis. The Dr. I referenced is an actual physician and not an anonymous Snopes investigator' with a passion to defend Hilary.

Until 'hard evidence' to the contrary shows up, I will maintain my position; Hilary has neurological problems and isn't fit for duty.

I want to emphasize that's only my opinion and not a diagnosis of any particular disease. As it presently stands, that position is almost entirely based on the visuals we can't miss and little else. People are free of course to take whatever they like from any of the available material in circulation, but in the present case, Snopes is presenting a circumstantial argument of sorts and it's far less compelling imho than the one the good Dr. brought forward.

Snopes commented and so will I; Drew Pinsky's show was something I enjoyed from time to time. I feel it's safe to guess that Dr. Pinsky knows a lot more about Hilary's condition than the individual that fired him on the basis of PCness. Dare I say; the management at HLN is going to look dangerously silly down the road when Hilary goes down next time, but that's only an opinion too.

Bad food and bladder infections are about the only excuses left to the Clinton campaign that will fit, but creativity being what it is, who knows what they'll come up with next time out? 

 

[Don Hudson]

Well, the record shows that lots of presidents have had lots of ailments and continued to serve effectively.

"Hillary's health" is a manufactured political schtick by dishonest hacks who like the publicity and attention and that includes Trump who is dysfunctional beyond belief.

She has been given a clean bill of health from her doctor who has communicated it publicly. In normal times that would end the matter with a yawn. Like the "birther" matter, Mr. Trump hangs on to threads of discontent and turns them into mountains when others have long since left him behind in the muck.

If he really wants the job and wishes to be taken seriously by voters and the rest of the world, Mr. Trump should ditch the let's-make-a-deal, corrupt businessman approach, dump his considerable business interests and board memberships and get on with something resembling presidential capability and leadership. He has yet to do any of that in a way that doesn't take the American voters for fools.

 

 

 

[deicer]

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/09/17/a-list-of-things-donald-trump-said-on-friday.html

Another 15 false claims.

[Airband]

2 hours ago, Don Hudson said:

 He has yet to do any of that in a way that doesn't take the American voters for fools.
 

As opposed to Hillary who considers a sizeable segment of them as merely deplorable.

[Moon The Loon]

7 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Thanks IFG

I appreciate your position, but I can't buy in to the Snopes analysis. The Dr. I referenced is an actual physician and not an anonymous Snopes investigator' with a passion to defend Hilary.

Until 'hard evidence' to the contrary shows up, I will maintain my position; Hilary has neurological problems and isn't fit for duty.

I want to emphasize that's only my opinion and not a diagnosis of any particular disease. As it presently stands, that position is almost entirely based on the visuals we can't miss and little else. People are free of course to take whatever they like from any of the available material in circulation, but in the present case, Snopes is presenting a circumstantial argument of sorts and it's far less compelling imho than the one the good Dr. brought forward.

Snopes commented and so will I; Drew Pinsky's show was something I enjoyed from time to time. I feel it's safe to guess that Dr. Pinsky knows a lot more about Hilary's condition than the individual that fired him on the basis of PCness. Dare I say; the management at HLN is going to look dangerously silly down the road when Hilary goes down next time, but that's only an opinion too.

Bad food and bladder infections are about the only excuses left to the Clinton campaign that will fit, but creativity being what it is, who knows what they'll come up with next time out? 

 

I can't believe you wrote that. "Neurological problems"??? THAT is the reason you would vote for Trump???

This has to be The Most dysfunctional electoral choice in American history. Clinton is no saint; neither was her husband. But a lying scoundrel that fosters division and hate she's not.

Therefore, lesser of two evils applies. In my very humble opinion.

[Fido]

58 minutes ago, Moon The Loon said:

But a lying scoundrel that fosters division and hate she's not.

I am not sure that she is not a lying scoundrel

[Don Hudson]

Both candidates have been shown to be untruthful on various occasions. The Trump fact-checkers have full-time employment without weekends off while Ms.Clinton only needs part-time interns.

There's no point in trotting out the graphs showing who has been more fanciful with the truth because denial and wishful thinking are more powerful when it comes to betting horses and politics.

The point is not who lies more...likely Nixon takes the icing while all the rest supply substantial cake, including those mentioned above - no argument there from me.

The point is,

-  which mind and emotional temperament do you want in the cockpit, (or in charge of the military or dealing with China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and of course Europe)? 

- who do you think would be better at what we call CRM?

-  does anyone really believe that "bombing the s... out of IS or boka haram is a real and doable solution or does it just feel good to say so while in a quiet moment you really know it would further destabilize and even reverse progress?

-  does anyone really believe that Kim Jong Un is going to listen, respect and quake at the Republican Party's candidates public displays of chest-beating?

-  which candidate is more under the thumb and beholding to powerful business alliances around the world, and has a serious conflict of interest problem?

-  because he lies with impunity so habitually that even we have become inurred to this unbelievable low standard for the office, do we really believe that the Republican candidate is capable of separating the affairs and priorites of state, from the powerful forces of his business empire and cronies around the world, including those in Russia?

 

[Airband]

17 minutes ago, Don Hudson said:

-  which candidate is more under the thumb and beholding to powerful business alliances around the world, and has a serious conflict of interest problem?

Now that's a very good question.

[IFG]

On ‎2016‎-‎09‎-‎15 at 1:48 PM, Don Hudson said:

.... Trudeau is no such sea-change, not even close, and neither was Mr. Harper. "Distasteful" is contextual. While there may always be elements of what we might call the "extreme right" in Canada, as the last election clearly demonstrated, Canadians are not prepared to permit its evolution in their own country; the character of the country, the social & political milieu are not conducive to a Trump-like candidate, and we could say that about many other countries; -  at present he-she would not make it past the post.....

 

Wish I could share your optimism there, Don. I think our voters are just as capable as U.S. voters are (hey - Canadian content?), of swallowing 'what they want to hear' as if it really was 'telling it like it is!'. The Ford-Nation effect in Toronto resonates well with the Trump effect below the border. The danger here lies not with these individual political performers. Simplistic, authoritarian, table-pounding blowhards always abound; they've just usually been shunned by the vast majority. Trouble lies with a developing critical mass of the electorate eager to travel along with such "leaders". History has (what should be?) sobering examples.

 

16 hours ago, DEFCON said:

.... I can't buy in to the Snopes analysis. The Dr. I referenced is an actual physician and not an anonymous Snopes investigator' with a passion to defend Hilary.

Until 'hard evidence' to the contrary shows up, I will maintain my position; Hilary has neurological problems and isn't fit for duty.

I want to emphasize that's only my opinion and not a diagnosis of any particular disease. As it presently stands, that position is almost entirely based on the visuals we can't miss and little else. People are free of course to take whatever they like from any of the available material in circulation, but in the present case, Snopes is presenting a circumstantial argument of sorts and it's far less compelling imho than the one the good Dr. brought forward ....

G'day, Defcon - We're all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. And regarding the former, agreed upon entitlement, opinions remain subject to judgements. Right-to-hold confers no worthiness or validity. I'm sure you know this, but I'm always leery when said right is asserted . So let's note some things.

The Snopes researcher is not "anonymous", he's identified bottom-page.

Snopes is an equal-opportunity fact-checker. The have frequently held HRC to account for lying. Probably not as often as the have Mr. Trump, but that's a result of the totally unprecedented, carelessly unrestrained ubiquity of his untruthfulness. It's an utterly asymmetric comparison to point out his opponents' lack of purity.

Dr. Noel is not a neurologist, nor any specialist in Parkinson's. He is apparently an anesthesiologist, albeit pronouncing upon neurological diagnoses. In spite of his disclaimers of professional objectivity, his comments are liberally seasoned with his biased political views. Now, we all know it is unethical for physicians to make diagnoses without contact with the patient, but hey are entitled to express their opinions. just the same as we are. The ice they skate on thins, though, when they seek a greater credibility due to their claimed qualifications. So Dr. Noel is both, at least  ethically strained, and thinly qualified to make his assertions. FWIW, I recommend a grain of salt.

Cheers, IFG

[DEFCON]

We all seem to hold strong, perhaps sometimes even unreasonable positions with respect to the two main candidates.

Perhaps we ought to be spending a little more time looking at the Libertarian Ticket, which is probably more favourable to the Canadian psyche regardless?

 

[Airband]

18 hours ago, IFG said:

I think our voters are just as capable as U.S. voters are (hey - Canadian content?), of swallowing 'what they want to hear' as if it really was 'telling it like it is!'. The Ford-Nation effect in Toronto resonates well with the Trump effect below the border. The danger here lies not with these individual political performers. Simplistic, authoritarian, table-pounding blowhards always abound; they've just usually been shunned by the vast majority. Trouble lies with a developing critical mass of the electorate eager to travel along with such "leaders".

I think there might be underpinnings here for a CBC mini-series wherein an aging xenophobe uses his national name recognition and popularity to forge a coalition of anti-immigrant climate change deniers to hijack the Conservative Party leadership race. He then expands and rallies his base of malcontents under the banner of 'One Colour, One Language, One Nation' in the following general election. Trick would seem to be picking the right actors to play Don Cherry as lead and Justin Trudeau as his photogenic but totally ineffective opponent.

[IFG]

4 hours ago, Airband said:

I think there might be underpinnings here for a CBC mini-series wherein an aging xenophobe uses his national name recognition and popularity to forge a coalition of anti-immigrant climate change deniers to hijack the Conservative Party leadership race. He then expands and rallies his base of malcontents under the banner of 'One Colour, One Language, One Nation' in the following general election. Trick would seem to be picking the right actors to play Don Cherry as lead and Justin Trudeau as his photogenic but totally ineffective opponent.

 

 

9 hours ago, DEFCON said:

We all seem to hold strong, perhaps sometimes even unreasonable positions with respect to the two main candidates.

Perhaps we ought to be spending a little more time looking at the Libertarian Ticket, which is probably more favourable to the Canadian psyche regardless?

 

 

If there was a realistic pathway to developing a third alternative in the U.S.. that would certainly be an option. We are able to play with it here in Canada, even with our clunky and much maligned FPTP representative elections.

In America, any failure to attain a majority in the electoral college throws the presidential selection into the House of Representatives, where the GOP holds a gerrymandered lock on majority, even with substantially fewer total votes - the same GOP in such dysfunction right now that a deplorable fringe of a tail (to use a now non-PC, right-wing-version, word - see, not-PC works both ways!) can wag the whole, angry right-of-centre dog.

So, only those willing to surrender the White House to a corruptly one-sided House of Rep's for a few terms can afford to gamble on trying to develop another party alternative. Hard to see that happening.

Cheers, IFG

[mo32a]

On 9/18/2016 at 0:10 PM, DEFCON said:

We all seem to hold strong, perhaps sometimes even unreasonable positions with respect to the two main candidates.

Perhaps we ought to be spending a little more time looking at the Libertarian Ticket, which is probably more favourable to the Canadian psyche regardless?

 

Did you watch Johnson/Weld interview on 60 Minutes on Sunday.

They have some good ideas but some that are a little too far fetched to ever reach mainstream acceptance. And at that they are at odds with the actual Libertarian party manifesto in places as well. Basically they are Republican Lite, which is not a bad thing.

[UpperDeck]

On 2016-09-17 at 0:20 AM, IFG said:

 

SNOPES: False!  ( http://www.snopes.com/chelsea-clintons-apartment-is-actually-a-hospital/  )

 

          

SNOPES: Also false! ( http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-has-parkinsons-disease/  )

 

C/mon guys! Enough with this nut-bar Bull$#it from the right-wing echo-chamber!  There may, or may not be something to the issues that this nonsense pretends to illuminate. Time will tell, if telling is required, but trafficking in falsehoods tarnishes and disgraces the purveyor as much as it does the original author. Defcon, we've been down this sorry path before. Mo32a, no further "comments" warranted or deserved.

Cheers, IFG

 

I don't THINK I'm a "right wing nutbar". I suppose it's possible but I'm much more frequently labelled a "liberal commie" at least on those forums where I suggest gun control is not entirely unreasonable.

That being said, I read the Snopes article-----and it is in fact only an article-----supposedly refuting the SUGGESTION that Chelsea's New York apartment may be something more than just a residence for a young woman, her husband and child. Personally, I would have expected that when a US Senator became obviously physically unstable by reason of an unknown malady....ANY cause or condition,,,,,he/she would have immediately been taken to a hospital.

The Clinton campaign stated that the Senator collapsed because of pneumonia. I had pneumonia. I didn't feel great but I didn't collapse in public. Perhaps that's unfair. I wasn't campaigning or attending a 9/11 memorial BUT....why was she if she was unwell? Returning to the point of this comment.....why was she taken to her daughter's apartment rather than directly to a medical facility? If the answer is that trained medical personnel and a physician were available at the apartment then the speculation discussed in the Snopes article was not unreasonable.

And as an aside-----apart from Hillary's stint at the Rose law firm, she and her husband have "devoted" their lives to the political arena. That arena must be VERY rewarding if it affords one the ability to assist a child in obtaining and maintaining a 10 million dollar New York apartment!!

 

Don commented above on the relative "truthfulness" of Trump and Clinton. I think I might have said this before but I find it much easier to cope with someone who obviously engages in hyperbole as part of an undisguised sales pitch (Trump) than with someone who wants and expects me to believe and act upon her statements (Clinton). Seriously----every single participant on this forum KNOWS to take everything said by Trump with a large grain of salt. With Clinton, you have to engage in some form of "reasoned analysis" and most voters can't/won't do that. For that reason, in my opinion, Clinton's candidacy is much more insidious than Trump's.

[DEFCON]

Moon

I'm not an American, so I can't vote, but if I could I would vote for Trump long before I'd ever, well, I could never vote for Clinton.

 

mo32a

I agree, I was mostly kidding.

 

IFG

I did miss the authors name at the end of the Snopes opinion piece IFG. I call it opinion because I don't believe Emery has offered any evidence that could pass a 'sniff test' and stand up to the scrutiny of a courtroom examination.

I'm aware that Dr. Noel is not a neurologist, but Mrs. Clinton's Internist isn't either. More important I think is the notable absence of the kind of medical studies neurologists and pulmonologists normally employ to properly inform their opinions. Dr. Bardack has not released any study that I've seen to date that would provide unequivocal support for her stated medical opinions.

 

Don

To paraphrase Bill Maher; the public is completely polarized when it comes to their positions in respect of Clinton & Trump. For example, the very moment I begin to consider the world with a President Hilary Clinton, a sense of revulsion overwhelms me, it's a purely primal guttural sort of response and an experience shared with the other side the moment visions of Donald Trump enters their head. I think the over-the-top animosity being expressed towards the current candidates by the average guy this time around is a pretty scary phenomena.

"which candidate is more under the thumb and beholding to powerful business alliances around the world, and has a serious conflict of interest problem?"

Hilary is the hands down winner in his category Don. Do you really think world leaders are going to give up staggering amounts of cash to the Clinton Foundation without some form of quid-pro-quo?

"do we really believe that the Republican candidate is capable of separating the affairs and priorites of state, from the powerful forces of his business empire and cronies around the world, including those in Russia?"

When it comes to Trump I can only hope, but don't you think it would be fair to ask the same questions of Clinton?

 

 

 

 

[Don Hudson]

Hi IFG...

Thanks for commenting - I think your points are well made. Yes, I'm optimistic that Canadians are more aware of the state of their country's politics and wouldn't tolerate a Trump, for long anyway. I say that becThat said, Canadians did choose Mr. Trudeau over Mr. Harper. The "Ford" case is certainly an example that people will follow bullies (as long as those self-same people aren't the target), and personal dysfunction for many reasons, perhaps the raw entertainment value being among them. Again that said, I am watching the Conservative Party's leadership exercise, in particular the commentary from the declared and potential candidates to see if they are hearkening to what is unfolding in the United States for potential campaign strategies.

Hi Upper Deck;

The argument that because something is "out in the open" that it is somehow imbued with a particular quality is flawed primarily because it assumes that we know what 'the real Trump' is and it coincides with what we see.

We can't possibly know if Trump is "authentic" - all we know is he's good in a verbal street fight and most people like such "clarity" when in fact the world is far more complex, as you say. Trump is without any sophistication and that appeals to many who, as you say, don't want to go much deeper than the evening news when examining their presidential candidates.

[UpperDeck]

Don.....

Perhaps I am over-simplistic. However, I believe that the greatest of intentions are as nought when it comes to implementation and the same can be said of altruistic goals. I honestly thought that Obama might lead a pathway by a non-confrontational approach to global affairs. I thought he would step away from the exportation of democracy. I was wrong. Those from whom the greatest threats to world peace emanate respect strength and not diplomacy. Donald Trump is an unknown commodity. That is apparent to "our adversaries" and they might fear that if pushed, he would not hesitate to use force in priority to a Secretary of State shuttle. That might give them pause. China might be more inclined to rein in North Korea. Russia might think a little longer before arming its surrogates. But, and perhaps more importantly, I take comfort that a President is surrounded by advisers and has very little real authority without the support of congress. Appearance oft-times is of substance itself. Obama has achieved very little if we ignore the spread of "illegal settlements" by Israel; the annexation of the Crimea; the devastation of Syria; the failed state of Libya....and....and. But then there's health care. That's working out well, isn't it? Hmm. Doesn't appear that this honourable former constitutional law professor has actually scored many points, does it? And in my opinion, Clinton is NOT a change. And I am an unrepentant fan of William Jefferson Clinton.

[IFG]

15 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

.... That being said, I read the Snopes article-----and it is in fact only an article-----supposedly refuting the SUGGESTION that Chelsea's New York apartment may be something more than just a residence for a young woman, her husband and child. Personally, I would have expected that when a US Senator became obviously physically unstable by reason of an unknown malady....ANY cause or condition,,,,,he/she would have immediately been taken to a hospital.

The Clinton campaign stated that the Senator collapsed because of pneumonia. I had pneumonia. I didn't feel great but I didn't collapse in public. Perhaps that's unfair. I wasn't campaigning or attending a 9/11 memorial BUT....why was she if she was unwell? Returning to the point of this comment.....why was she taken to her daughter's apartment rather than directly to a medical facility? If the answer is that trained medical personnel and a physician were available at the apartment then the speculation discussed in the Snopes article was not unreasonable.

And as an aside-----apart from Hillary's stint at the Rose law firm, she and her husband have "devoted" their lives to the political arena. That arena must be VERY rewarding if it affords one the ability to assist a child in obtaining and maintaining a 10 million dollar New York apartment!! ....

 

Hi, UD' - It's generous to characterize the original article as only a suggestion ... somewhat like Trump's "some people are saying ..." as an avoidance of responsibility for polluting the airwaves. You are making a suggestion, but the article has a much more declarative effect by its false statements, until one parses it carefully.

I don't like being cast as a defender of HRC. One of the things that angers me most about dilettante Trump's hijack of the GOP is her probable election, But he is by orders of magnitude worse. I find his candidacy so distasteful, I hate dwelling on it at all; he is just another simplistic, egotistical, bombastic, frightfully ignorant loudmouth. Never been a lack of those, but most are not supercharged by great wealth and a cult of "celebrity". but there you go!

What is worrying to me is the fact that such a critical mass of the electorate in the U.S. can sign on to it. Democracy only functions with some level of consensus, and sometimes requires some good luck - there is no guarantee of collective wisdom, and from time to time, countries just take a wrong turn.

& By the by, the Clintons' wealth is a matter of publicly disclosed record, accumilated mostly post-2000, all your innuendo notwithstanding.

 

15 hours ago, DEFCON said:

.... I did miss the authors name at the end of the Snopes opinion piece IFG. I call it opinion because I don't believe Emery has offered any evidence that could pass a 'sniff test' and stand up to the scrutiny of a courtroom examination.

I'm aware that Dr. Noel is not a neurologist, but Mrs. Clinton's Internist isn't either. More important I think is the notable absence of the kind of medical studies neurologists and pulmonologists normally employ to properly inform their opinions. Dr. Bardack has not released any study that I've seen to date that would provide unequivocal support for her stated medical opinions ....

Hi again, Defcon - Again, don't want to be drafted as a HRC-defender, But at least Dr. Bardack examines the patient she is treating, and hopefully has/will consult specialists as required. As far as disclosure is concerned, I would tend to want full disclosures on both candidates, but I also believe there is also a partisan obsession on the subject that would have 'saved' us all from the horror of bearing leadership by both Churchill (obesity, alcohol & tobacco use, a heart attack while WWII PM), and Roosevelt (paraplegic, died in office! etc)

You're of course entitled to your "opinion" of the foundations for whatever Snopes and the other fact-checkers publish. Regarding "hard evidence", perhaps you have some instances of published material from Snopes, Politifact etc. being shown incorrect? There're probably a few cases, hopefully acknowledged and corrected. It would be particularly interesting if it comes anything close to matching the repetitive inveracity of some of the sites sourcing stuff you've put up here. But at some point, if track record means nothing, there's not much left to say, is there?

Cheers, IFG