"10 Things Trump Supporters Are Too Stupid To Realize"

[Don Hudson]

Trump Plans to take Iraqi Oil - Guardian, September 22, 2016

Trump's plan to seize Iraq's oil: 'It's not stealing, we're reimbursing ourselves'

One of the recurring themes of Donald Trump’s national security strategy is his plan to “take the oil” in Iraq and from areas controlled by Islamic State (Isis) extremists. It would drain Isis’s coffers and reimburse the US for the costs of its military commitments in the Middle East, the candidate insists.

At a forum hosted by NBC on 7 September, Trump suggested oil seizure would have been a way to pay for the Iraq war, saying: “We go in, we spend $3tn, we lose thousands and thousands of lives, and then … what happens is we get nothing. You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils.”

He added: “One of the benefits we would have had if we took the oil is Isis would not have been able to take oil and use that oil to fuel themselves.”

Giuliani defends Trump idea to take Middle East oil: 'Anything is legal' in war

 

Read more

The idea predates Trump’s presidential campaign. As far back as 2011, he was telling the Wall Street Journal that this was his policy for Iraq. “You heard me, I would take the oil,” he said. “I would not leave Iraq and let Iran take the oil.” And he insisted to ABC News that this did not amount to national theft.

“You’re not stealing anything,” Trump said. “We’re reimbursing ourselves … at a minimum, and I say more. We’re taking back $1.5tn to reimburse ourselves.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=The+minute+-+auto&utm_term=191457&subid=18933254&CMP=ema-2636

[Don Hudson]

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

[Airband]

42 minutes ago, Don Hudson said:

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

Could very well turn out to be one of the most prescient articles written about the election - reading it is time well spent.

Excerpt:

Quote

Let’s face it: Our biggest problem here isn’t Trump – it’s Hillary. She is hugely unpopular — nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. That’s why she fights against gays getting married one moment, and the next she’s officiating a gay marriage. Young women are among her biggest detractors, which has to hurt considering it’s the sacrifices and the battles that Hillary and other women of her generation endured so that this younger generation would never have to be told by the Barbara Bushes of the world that they should just shut up and go bake some cookies. But the kids don’t like her, and not a day goes by that a millennial doesn’t tell me they aren’t voting for her. No Democrat, and certainly no independent, is waking up on November 8th excited to run out and vote for Hillary the way they did the day Obama became president or when Bernie was on the primary ballot. The enthusiasm just isn’t there. And because this election is going to come down to just one thing — who drags the most people out of the house and gets them to the polls — Trump right now is in the catbird seat.

 

[Don Hudson]

Yes, I thought so too. Obviously a great deal rides on both candidates' performance on Monday.

From the Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/23/trump-is-headed-for-a-win-says-professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-outcomes-correctly/

From the NYT, "Who Will Win the Presidency" series, (updated daily) - this one is interesting to play with as it provides an interactive way to see which states which candidate needs to win - really well done; http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

[deicer]

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-warns-that-clinton-will-rig-debate-by-using-facts?mbid=social_facebook

[deicer]

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/stephen-hawking-angers-trump-supporters-with-baffling-array-of-long-words

[Don Hudson]

The Borowitz articles are great satire. Stephen Colbert had a ten-minute commentary on Trump's birtherism - also great, great satire.

Here's a sanity check:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dangerous-nihilism-of-trump-voters/2016/05/04/0cf3fbe8-1212-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.16a6f0c8dd61'

From the article:

 

Quote

 

As night follows day, recriminations flowed in the Republican camp after Donald Trump laid claim to the GOP presidential nomination.

To hear many tell it, Jeb Bush is at fault for taking Trump too lightly. Or Ted Cruz, for failing to broaden his appeal after winning Wisconsin. Or “the establishment” generally, because — well, because everything is its fault.

Fine. But there hasn’t been nearly enough blaming of the people most responsible for The Donald’s rise: his voters.

They are perpetually — indulgently — described as “angry,” or “frustrated,” or “fed up,” and no doubt they are. But exactly how reasonable are those feelings, and how rational a response to them is a vote for Trump?

The answers, respectively, are “only somewhat” and “not at all.”

 

On the Immigration-taking-our-jobs question, the following is of interest:

 

Quote

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/03/26/testimony-of-jeffrey-s-passel-unauthorized-immigrant-population/

March 26, 2015

Testimony of Jeffrey S. Passel – Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, Industries and Occupations

The U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing on March 26 at 10 a.m. titled “Securing the Border: Defining the Current Population Living in the Shadows and Addressing Future Flows.” You can read Pew Research Center Senior Demographer Jeffrey Passel’s testimony below and watch a webcast of the hearing here.

Cont'd

Setting aside his one-issue campaign for a moment, I wonder what Mr. Trump's views are on science. Can we expect some semblance of rationality in terms of policy? Or, if Mr. Trump becomes President Trump, are we in for a round of The New Lysenkoism?

The notions of "starting over", "cleaning house", "a fresh beginning" or, "the end of corruption" are all very attractive but illusory.

One doesn't "start the U.S. government over again". Yet it is this very belief that Mr. Trump is selling to his angry voters.

Picture this bombastic personality on a cold January morning on Inauguration Day, a day normally filled with the many optimistic promises offered during all campaigns, on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, the world awaiting what will come of an unpredictable mind.

Contrast our memories of past Presidential beginnings of such men as Kennedy, Reagan, Bill Clinton, even Carter, Nixon and Bush II, with the image of Donald Trump taking the Oath of Office of the President of the United States.

Keep in mind the mood and spirit of the country in 2008 when Obama was first elected - it was buoyant, uplifting, optimistic and promising - all those things we value in our leaders.

But the adult in us knows that such promises must confront domestic and foreign realities.

The Obama we see and know today is vastly different than the man who began in 2008.

What will a Trump presidency look like in a year?...four years? What will be the position of the United States in four years? Are we optimistic about such things? Do we believe in the forgiveness of other nations while the President of the United States learns the job, I mean, really learns the basics, not the subtleties?

These aren't partisan questions, these are serious questions for both candidates, but which Mr. Trump has not seen fit to address and which voters have an obligation to ask and have answered.

It is ironic and strange that the host of a Reality-TV show doesn't seem to even slightly comprehend the realities of the United States-in-the-world as-it-is.

It is not the President who can effect the changes that Mr. Trump brags about. While the politicians change every so often, we all know that government itself does not and such magical thinking as Mr. Trump is prone, will rapidly be shipwrecked.

What will be the relationship with the Joint Chiefs, with the Pentagon, with the Secret Service, with the CIA, (he has already proven unable to refrain from using private CIA briefings in public debate), with Homeland Security, with the Federal Reserve, with Education, with Justice, with the OMB, (Budget), with the Supreme Court? He entertains none of these questions and gives us no clues as to his comprehension of these relationships and how he will conduct them.

Who will really be in the driver's seat, particularly in the first 100 days?

How will President Trump deal with the substantial conflict-of-interest problems with his business empire?

Mr. Trump has proven himself difficult to educate; his ego is such that he is both unwilling and slow to learn. Is this "the captain" that we want in charge of the ship or aircraft? Does the United States have the luxury of time while Mr. Trump learns the basics of politics "on Monday morning"?

With a President Trump, what will occur on Day One is a monumental collision with such realities, the results being a shambles of those "first 100 Days" predictions.

How will President Trump respond?...No one knows.

 

 

[Specs]

It's all well and good and to pick fault with the candidates but it's more interesting for myself at least, to consider a bigger picture watching events unfold here. 

How does a democracy reinvent itself when it's no longer working for the interests of the population.   

In other parts of the world we've seen revolutions in response to those failings.  Some have been relatively peaceful.  Most have been violent and bloody.  

Was Brexit a first step down that path in the UK or will history judge it as the final straw that broke the camels back and stared a revolution of a some sort there?  Scotland is already talking secession again and seems poised to go that route on a moments notice.  Northern Ireland has even contemplated merging with the Republic (Southern Ireland) to stay in the EU.  

Is a win for The Donald a similar step down that road in America or just the epitome of how dysfunctional the States have become and a precursor to much more dramatic changes down the road?  It's not hard to imagine California, Texas or New York, etc eventually seceding from the union if he were to become president.  An Amerexit if you will.

On the other hand I'm almost certain a win for Hillary will just heighten the pressure on the boiler of social politics that is the US.  When it eventually blows the release will be even more dramatic.  I'm not sure that's in the interests of Canada or the world.    

Regardless of who wins this election seems unique or different form any other in my memory and a harbinger of significant changes to come in the US style of democratic government.  Will it be a peaceful revolution though via constitutional amendments and electoral/political changes or will it involve the military and the use of force?  We can can only hope it's the former and I think that's a more likely outcome with Donald screwing up sooner than letting Hillary keep stoking the fire for a dangerous release later on.  

 

 

[J.O.]

This should be a mandatory exercise before anyone votes, goes to their place of worship or travels. It'd suck the wind out of the sails for Trump and many who think he's so awesome.

 

[DEFCON]

Every time genetics are unwrapped, the people involved react with true surprise, which means it probably would be good for humanity if everyone were to participate and the results were made public.

Now for the 'but' ...

Our difficulties come about I think because of the influence of culture, which is mostly shaped by religious doctrine and other lesser factors. Cultural perspectives seem to be the determinative force guiding / influencing behaviour amongst members of a defined culture and towards those external to it. What would the world be like if we all shared a common religious understanding?

[deicer]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/hillary-clinton-ad-donald-trump-mock-women

[DEFCON]

Somewhere in the near past I posted a YouTube link to a clip that included a tape of Hilary speaking to a group following a criminal trial that took place several decades back when she was a young lawyer in practice.

Hilary's ego was satisfied by the result and she was pleased to let everyone listening know just how clever she thought she & the ( disgusting ) strategy employed were.

Hilary's 1st degree rape defendant, accused of particularly egregious behaviour, left Court a free man after being tried because according to Hilary,  she had done such a fine job beating the daylights out of the 12 year old female victim on the stand; as I recall, Hilary argued successfully that the victim was looking for hard sex and had lured the much much older defendant into her web.

The credible, now adult victim spoke to the film's producer in the present day. Her life had clearly been ruined by the experience.

The point; as Hilary herself demonstrated, she didn't have a shred of humanity within her back then and the attitude displayed towards the women Bill added to his fold since, at least those we're aware of, has been anything but pro-female. Then there's the more recent report from Colin Powell advising that 'Bill's still dicking 'bimbos' back at the house'; hasn't Bill made it clear that he has little respect for women in general? Bill's Oval Office sexual adventures with a very young woman that was essentially little more than a child at the time would seem to eliminate any opportunity to mount any kind of credible rebuttal.

Anyway, enough, there are too many hypocrisies to list.

Shouldn't Hilary's supporters be asking themselves what it is about Hilary and her campaign that allows them to ignore the truck loads of evidence that compel but one conclusion; the Clinton's are self-serving and prepared to take whatever they can and are fully prepared to lie, cheat, embellish and manipulate every form of truth to achieve their personal ambitions.

I just can't imagine where Hilary's supporters get the straight faced moxy to throw stones at a guy that employs all sorts of females in high power / profile positions etc.; is it all done tongue in cheek? 

     

[Airband]

2 hours ago, DEFCON said:

because according to Hilary,  she had done such a fine job beating the daylights out of the 12 year old female victim on the stand;  

That would have been difficult given the defendant pled guilty to a lesser charge and the victim never took the stand.

[deicer]

 

[Don Hudson]

In an educated, culturally-wise society, one would expect that someone pushing a microphone in your face and asking dumb questions would be insulting and in a society which knows it is smart, educated and wise, might get that interviewer a punch in the nose just to wake him/her up. But no..., the question and the interviewer is actually taken seriously.

So, does "nativism" include an abiding belief that ignorance is a culturally valuable commodity to be encouraged?

Thee article below was written in early August, but clearly the opposite has occurred amongst the American voters.

The definitive history of this dumbest, most dangerous point in modern American history, (and perhaps the world's history if this renegade candidate is actually elected and gets near the football), if/when it is written, will have to be entitled, "You Have to be Kidding!".

Do voters really, really know what they're doing? - One would half-believe that even those who voted for Bush have a limit, ...don't they?

Quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/trumps-enablers-will-finally-have-to-take-a-stand.html?_r=0

Trump’s Enablers Will Finally Have to Take a Stand

Up through the convention there were all sorts of Republican officeholders who weren’t really for Trump, but they weren’t really against him. They sort of endorsed him implicitly, while trying to change the subject.

Their bodies squirmed when they were asked about their nominee. They refused to look you straight in the eye. They made little apologetic comments so you would still like them even though they were doing this shameful thing.

They had all sorts of squirrelly formulations about why it was O.K. to ride the Trump train: He can be tamed or surrounded and improved. Sure, he’s got some real weaknesses, but he’s more or less a normal candidate who is at least better than Hillary.

Over the past few days, Trump has destroyed this middle ground. He’s exposed the wet noodle Republicans as suckers, or worse. Trump has shown that he is not a normal candidate. He is a political rampage charging ever more wildly out of control. And no, he cannot be changed.

He cannot be contained because he is psychologically off the chain. With each passing week he displays the classic symptoms of medium-grade mania in more disturbing forms: inflated self-esteem, sleeplessness, impulsivity, aggression and a compulsion to offer advice on subjects he knows nothing about.

His speech patterns are like something straight out of a psychiatric textbook. Manics display something called “flight of ideas.” It’s a formal thought disorder in which ideas tumble forth through a disordered chain of associations. One word sparks another, which sparks another, and they’re off to the races. As one trained psychiatrist said to me, compare Donald Trump’s speaking patterns to a Robin Williams monologue, but with insults instead of jokes.

Trump insults Paul Ryan, undermines NATO and raises the specter of nuclear war. Advisers can’t control Trump’s brain because Trump can’t control it himself.

He also cannot be contained because he lacks the inner equipment that makes decent behavior possible. So many of our daily social interactions depend on a basic capacity for empathy. But Trump displays an absence of this quality.

He looks at the grieving mother of a war hero and is unable to recognize her pain. He hears a crying baby and is unable to recognize the infant’s emotion or the mother’s discomfort. He is told of women being sexually harassed at Fox News and is unable to recognize their trauma.

The same blindness that makes him impervious to global outrage makes it impossible for him to make empathetic connection. Fear is his only bond.

Some people compare Trump to the great authoritarians of history, but that’s wrong. They were generally disciplined men with grandiose plans. Trump is underdeveloped and unregulated.

He is a slave to his own pride, compelled by a childlike impulse to lash out at anything that threatens his fragile identity. He appears to have no ability to experience reverence, which is the foundation for any capacity to admire or serve anything bigger than self, to want to learn about anything beyond self, to want to know and deeply honor the people around you.

Republicans are not going to be able to help the 70-year-old man-child grow up over the next few months. Nor are they going to be able to get him to withdraw from the race. A guy who can raise $82 million mostly in small donations has a passionate niche following.

But they can at least get out of the enabling business. First, they can acknowledge that they are being sucked down a nihilistic whirlpool. Second, they can acknowledge the long-term damage being done to the country and to themselves.

Amid the chaos, all sorts of ugliness is surfacing. See the video of the horrific things shouted at Trump rallies compiled by Times reporters. Moreover, Trump is permanently tainting the names of conservatism and the Republican Party and the many good men and women who have built and served it. As Ben Shapiro writes in National Review, “Trump asks something more — your political soul.”

Events are going to force Republicans off the fence. For the past many months Republican leaders have been condemning Trump’s acts while sticking with Trump the man. Trump is making that position ridiculous and shameful. You either stand with a man whose very essence is an insult to basic decency, or you don’t.

Those who don’t will have to start building a Republican Party in Exile. They will have to tell the country what they honestly think of Donald Trump. They will have to build a parallel campaign structure that will survive if Trump implodes, a structure of congressional and local candidates. They will have to jointly propose a clear manifesto — five or 10 policies the party in exile ardently supports.

There comes a time when neutrality and laying low become dishonorable. If you’re not in revolt, you’re in cahoots. When this period and your name are mentioned, decades hence, your grandkids will look away in shame.

 

 

 

[UpperDeck]

9 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Somewhere in the near past I posted a YouTube link to a clip that included a tape of Hilary speaking to a group following a criminal trial that took place several decades back when she was a young lawyer in practice.

Hilary's ego was satisfied by the result and she was pleased to let everyone listening know just how clever she thought she & the ( disgusting ) strategy employed were.

Hilary's 1st degree rape defendant, accused of particularly egregious behaviour, left Court a free man after being tried because according to Hilary,  she had done such a fine job beating the daylights out of the 12 year old female victim on the stand; as I recall, Hilary argued successfully that the victim was looking for hard sex and had lured the much much older defendant into her web.

The credible, now adult victim spoke to the film's producer in the present day. Her life had clearly been ruined by the experience.

The point; as Hilary herself demonstrated, she didn't have a shred of humanity within her back then and the attitude displayed towards the women Bill added to his fold since, at least those we're aware of, has been anything but pro-female. Then there's the more recent report from Colin Powell advising that 'Bill's still dicking 'bimbos' back at the house'; hasn't Bill made it clear that he has little respect for women in general? Bill's Oval Office sexual adventures with a very young woman that was essentially little more than a child at the time would seem to eliminate any opportunity to mount any kind of credible rebuttal.

Anyway, enough, there are too many hypocrisies to list.

Shouldn't Hilary's supporters be asking themselves what it is about Hilary and her campaign that allows them to ignore the truck loads of evidence that compel but one conclusion; the Clinton's are self-serving and prepared to take whatever they can and are fully prepared to lie, cheat, embellish and manipulate every form of truth to achieve their personal ambitions.

I just can't imagine where Hilary's supporters get the straight faced moxy to throw stones at a guy that employs all sorts of females in high power / profile positions etc.; is it all done tongue in cheek? 

     

There is a "Like" icon. There should be an alternative. I am not a fan of Ms. Clinton but I think this type of post is beyond the pale. Not only is it wholly inaccurate; it evidences a lack of reasonable ( or any!) restraint in the expression of opinion. "She didn't have a shred of humanity""???? Seriously? How do you rationalize ----to yourself-----such inane remarks?

I know. I know. Just use the "ignore" function but if we collectively never hold anyone to account for such posts, aren't we all complicit? Surely, as partisan as one might be, wouldn't we all be better-served if we were bold enough to say" enough is enough!" when the bounds of decency or the limits of reasonable discourse are exceeded?

[Jaydee]

10 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

There is a "Like" icon. There should be an alternative. I am not a fan of Ms. Clinton but I think this type of post is beyond the pale. Not only is it wholly inaccurate; it evidences a lack of reasonable ( or any!) restraint in the expression of opinion. "She didn't have a shred of humanity""???? Seriously? How do you rationalize ----to yourself-----such inane remarks?

I know. I know. Just use the "ignore" function but if we collectively never hold anyone to account for such posts, aren't we all complicit? Surely, as partisan as one might be, wouldn't we all be better-served if we were bold enough to say" enough is enough!" when the bounds of decency or the limits of reasonable discourse are exceeded?

This post epitomizes why the States will vote for Trump.  PC overload.

[DEFCON]

You're correct Airband, it was a plea deal in the end, but only because of some sort of prosecutorial screw up; my apologies for offending.

Regardless, Hilary makes it quite obvious that her expressions of concern for women, even those in extremely troubled circumstances, are phoney; winning is all that counts to this broad.

Here's another link.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html

UD - you don't have to defend your ilk as most people appreciate the fact that lawyers are soulless mercenaries that are generally absent a conscience, at least the successful ones anyway and Hilary repeatedly proves she has no moral difficulty living up to the standard.

 

 

[UpperDeck]

6 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

lawyers are soulless mercenaries

That sort of "blanket smear" is what, in my opinion, unfortunately diminishes the value of your contributions Defcon. I do not suggest that your comments are entirely devoid of merit. On the contrary, you often have interesting input which (again in my opinion) would be taken more seriously if the "wheat was separated from the chaff". The quote above is akin to saying "all pilots are drunks". That too would be a foolish remark notwithstanding that the description may be apt for SOME.

 

Jaydee...."PC"? I have absolutely no issue with someone offering criticism. I am not offended by "strong words" and do not suggest that one should be compelled to couch their language. I am suggesting that "civil discourse" reasonably requires that a poster not unnecessarily and unreasonably demean others of a different race, creed, sex or.......There was a reason that soldiers called the North Vietnamese "gooks". It dehumanizes the enemy and makes it easier to pull the trigger.

 

Defcon.....you know the function and obligations of criminal defence lawyers. You have admired at least one who was well-known to navigate the borders of legal ethics. In my opinion, there are issues with Hillary's defence of the accused rapist but one must unfortunately acknowledge that in Arkansas in the 70's (and more recently), what was or was not permitted very much depended upon the race and sex of the persons involved. Acting as the defence attorney, it was not Hillary's job to protect the 12 year old complainant/victim. She was required to conduct a vigorous and effective defence. And she did so. I question the affidavit she filed in support of a psychiatric evaluation. It was "bare" to say the least but accepting and acting upon that evidence was the responsibility of the Judge following submissions by the prosecuting attorney.

 

Are lawyers "mercenaries"? Of course they are but "soul-less"? You begin to sound like an extremist ....the ones you decry....wielding a machete and asking "Believer or non-believer?" and woe betide he or she who doesn't meet your favour.

[deicer]

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/how-often-trump-lies/?utm_content=inf_10_1164_2&tse_id=INF_0fe3f98083ef11e6bf8e470556fe0b22

Four news organizations came to a similar conclusion ahead of tonight’s presidential debate: That Donald Trump lies more often than Hillary Clinton. In a statement to ABC News, Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway said she doesn’t “appreciate campaigns thinking it is the job of the media to go and be these virtual fact-checkers and that these debate moderators should somehow do their bidding.”

.......

Brandon W. Lenoir, a High Point University professor of political communications and campaign veteran, explained why he believes Trump’s supporters have ignored fact checks. “When new information comes in, if it is consistent with your world view or your opinion of that particular candidate, you let it in; if it is inconsistent, you block it out,” Lenoir said. “So what happens is, people who have already pledged their allegiance to Trump, when they hear this information, they basically discount it and say, ‘Oh, that’s just the other side trying to break him down.’”

[Don Hudson]

Advice on tonight's debate...if you're watching at all, take part of the time to watch it with the sound turned off.

The Atlantic writer, James Fallows discusses the Kennedy/Nixon debate, observing what some said about the outcome and, "...that if the debate had been on radio, it was a tie." It's a well-worn story now, but it was Nixon's discomfort and sweaty lip that betrayed the candidate when viewed next to the dark-suited, cross-legged, comfortable Kennedy.

Body language is everything now. Fallows' article is interesting: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/who-will-win/497561/

For half the U.S. voting population, the following is obvious.

For all of those who believe that Trump is presidential material, take a look at the following.

If you can counter the four paragraphs below each of the bolded statements in the following NYT OpEd article with verifiable, reasoned arguments of your own, without testimonials, without emotivism and ad-hominem attacks, then we have a discussion.

These are fair statements, and are questions that deserve to be responded to intelligently, with thought, in a respectful manner. That is what voters ought to be doing right now.

 

Quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/opinion/why-donald-trump-should-not-be-president.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_ty_20160926&nl=opinion-today&nl_art=0&nlid=63732910&ref=headline&te=1&_r=1

Why Donald Trump should Not Be President

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD SEPT. 25, 2016

. . . .

A financial wizard who can bring executive magic to government?

Despite his towering properties, Mr. Trump has a record rife with bankruptcies and sketchy ventures like Trump University, which authorities are investigating after numerous complaints of fraud. His name has been chiseled off his failed casinos in Atlantic City.

Mr. Trump’s brazen refusal to disclose his tax returns — as Mrs. Clinton and other nominees for decades have done — should sharpen voter wariness of his business and charitable operations. Disclosure would undoubtedly raise numerous red flags; the public record already indicates that in at least some years he made full use of available loopholes and paid no taxes.

Mr. Trump has been opaque about his questionable global investments in Russia and elsewhere, which could present conflicts of interest as president, particularly if his business interests are left in the hands of his children, as he intends. Investigations have found self-dealing. He notably tapped $258,000 in donors’ money from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit businesses, according to The Washington Post.

A straight talker who tells it like it is?

Mr. Trump, who has no experience in national security, declares that he has a plan to soundly defeat the Islamic State militants in Syria, but won’t reveal it, bobbing and weaving about whether he would commit ground troops. Voters cannot judge whether he has any idea what he’s talking about without an outline of his plan, yet Mr. Trump ludicrously insists he must not tip off the enemy.

Another of his cornerstone proposals — his campaign pledge of a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim newcomers plus the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants across a border wall paid for by Mexico — has been subjected to endless qualifications as he zigs and zags in pursuit of middle-ground voters.

Whatever his gyrations, Mr. Trump always does make clear where his heart lies — with the anti-immigrant, nativist and racist signals that he scurrilously employed to build his base.

He used the shameful “birther” campaign against President Obama’s legitimacy as a wedge for his candidacy. But then he opportunistically denied his own record, trolling for undecided voters by conceding that Mr. Obama was a born American. In the process he tried to smear Mrs. Clinton as the instigator of the birther canard and then fled reporters’ questions.

Since his campaign began, NBC News has tabulated that Mr. Trump has made 117 distinct policy shifts on 20 major issues, including three contradictory views on abortion in one eight-hour stretch. As reporters try to pin down his contradictions, Mr. Trump has mocked them at his rallies. He said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations that displease him.

An expert negotiator who can fix government and overpower other world leaders?

His plan for cutting the national debt was far from a confidence builder: He said he might try to persuade creditors to accept less than the government owed. This fanciful notion, imported from Mr. Trump’s debt-steeped real estate world, would undermine faith in the government and the stability of global financial markets. His tax-cut plan has been no less alarming. It was initially estimated to cost $10 trillion in tax revenue, then, after revisions, maybe $3 trillion, by one adviser’s estimate. There is no credible indication of how this would be paid for — only assurances that those in the upper brackets will be favored.

If Mr. Trump were to become president, his open doubts about the value of NATO would present a major diplomatic and security challenge, as would his repeated denunciations of trade deals and relations with China. Mr. Trump promises to renegotiate the Iran nuclear control agreement, as if it were an air-rights deal on Broadway. Numerous experts on national defense and international affairs have recoiled at the thought of his commanding the nuclear arsenal. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell privately called Mr. Trump “an international pariah.” Mr. Trump has repeatedly denounced global warming as a “hoax,” although a golf course he owns in Ireland is citing global warming in seeking to build a protective wall against a rising sea.

In expressing admiration for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Trump implies acceptance of Mr. Putin’s dictatorial abuse of critics and dissenters, some of whom have turned up murdered, and Mr. Putin’s vicious crackdown on the press. Even worse was Mr. Trump’s urging Russia to meddle in the presidential campaign by hacking the email of former Secretary of State Clinton. Voters should consider what sort of deals Mr. Putin might obtain if Mr. Trump, his admirer, wins the White House.

A change agent for the nation and the world?

There can be little doubt of that. But voters should be asking themselves if Mr. Trump will deliver the kind of change they want. Starting a series of trade wars is a recipe for recession, not for new American jobs. Blowing a hole in the deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy will not secure Americans’ financial future, and alienating our allies won’t protect our security. Mr. Trump has also said he will get rid of the new national health insurance system that millions now depend on, without saying how he would replace it.

The list goes on: He would scuttle the financial reforms and consumer protections born of the Great Recession. He would upend the Obama administration’s progress on the environment, vowing to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” on global warming. He would return to the use of waterboarding, a torture method, in violation of international treaty law. He has blithely called for reconsideration of Japan’s commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. He favors a national campaign of “stop and frisk” policing, which has been ruled unconstitutional. He has blessed the National Rifle Association’s ambition to arm citizens to engage in what he imagines would be defensive “shootouts” with gunmen. He has so coarsened our politics that he remains a contender for the presidency despite musing about his opponent as a gunshot target.

Voters should also consider Mr. Trump’s silence about areas of national life that are crying out for constructive change: How would he change our schools for the better? How would he lift more Americans out of poverty? How would his condescending appeal to black voters — a cynical signal to white moderates concerned about his racist supporters — translate into credible White House initiatives to promote racial progress? How would his call to monitor and even close some mosques affect the nation’s life and global reputation? Would his Supreme Court nominees be zealous, self-certain extensions of himself? In all these areas, Mrs. Clinton has offered constructive proposals. He has offered bluster, or nothing. The most specific domestic policy he has put forward, on tax breaks for child care, would tilt toward the wealthy.

Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?

 

 

[deicer]

Further to the debate tonight...

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/more-americans-expected-to-self-medicate-than-for-any-other-debate-in-history?mbid=nl_092616+Borowitz+Newsletter+(1)&CNDID=44894525&spMailingID=9580989&spUserID=MTU1MjE3NDgxNTg3S0&spJobID=1002113474&spReportId=MTAwMjExMzQ3NAS2

[DEFCON]

UD

You've succeeded in getting me to feel a little bad for being so hard on lawyers. As you are aware, I do hold a great deal of respect for the competent lawyers & judges I've come to know over the years. I also accept your observation with regard to my view of that particular lawyer.

When laymen such as myself observe an officer of the court, in this case Hilary, displaying such a callous attitude in respect of truth and general goodness, it's difficult to categorize her as worthy of the calling and as a citizen, I feel like I've been let down.

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

I would never attempt to defend the crazy sh!t that spews from Trump's mouth from time-to-time, or his past bankruptcies etc.

But then there really is another side to the equation and it's called HRC. I want to emphasize how frustrating it can be for fair minded observers and debaters to process the never ending denial and all the diversions that take place whenever they ask for a fair examination of issues relative to the moral, physical & mental integrity of team Clinton; the response that follows any query usually consists of either, deafening silences, or a redirect and assault on Trump?

As I keep repeating, I am unable to defend, or justify most, if any of the Trumpisms that bother so many here, but nor could I for his opposition. I prefer Trump only because he is the only candidate that is a genuine catalyst for change. I feel that America and the rest of the West are in need of a big shakeup and after witnessing about three decades of flaky political leadership at every level and from every corner of all governments, I am prepared to accept the risks that come with a Trump Presidency in exchange for the real chance at a better future. I can also say that I like the developing Trump Cabinet lineup.       

The audience for tonight's debate is expected to exceed 100M ... WOW! Like the Primaries, we know the publics new found obsession with the election process isn't a product of anything other than Trump's influence. And while most people acknowledge the almost nutty reality show appeal of the whole affair, Trump supporters respect his boldness and willingness to speak to the issues directly; we Deplorables are tired of the political rhetoric and are only seeking "Change You Can Believe In".

I'd like to remind the Lefties here on the Board that back in 2008 you were all giddy and holding Obama up as if he were the new Messiah and his administration the Second Coming. I think the results of eight years of Democratic rule are telling and Hilary is promising more of the same; as unpredictable and crude as Trump may be, in my mind, Team Trump is the only choice.    

[deicer]

Defcon, I like your posts, but your ideology clouds the picture.

I submit to you this to clarify the issue about Obama.....

http://www.snopes.com/barack-obama-accomplishments/

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good argument

[Mitch Cronin]

...as some comedian put it, this comes to the 'evil of two lessers'! 

....Or maybe not? it still strikes me that there's a strong possibility that any negative information we've been fed about Hillary may be pure BS, cooked up by the machinery of the "GOP" [which nomenclature is a stunning example of BS in itself!]... On the other hand we can see as clear as the sky from a mountain top, that Trump is so full of BS that it just oozes from his every pore as he speaks. ....no external influences required, just truth.