What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought what Crowley did was the greatest debate moment ever. That's what I want to see more of. And I supported Romney and voted for him. 

 
Sand said:
You can expect Reince to be biased - he is.  I've heard a bit of commentary both on TV and radio this morning and the concencus is that both were pretty bad.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I disagree with the consensus.  Hillary showed again that she doesn't wilt under direct fire and she has a firm  grasp on policy and a good knowledge base of information on a wide variety of subjects.  Trump, on the other hand, was the same mess he always is with a bunch of non sequiturs and gibberish meant to gloss over his apathy/ignorance.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Dunno. Maybe, although I don't think they'd care, it's not all that helpful. Maybe he just saw it and decided to help Clinton without consulting her, thinking it would be helpful.  Maybe he has a longstanding feud with Powell we don't know about and wanted to make him look bad- after all Cummings was a vocal opponent of the Iraq War and CBC opposition to it, probably didn't like that there was a black guy pushing for it. Who knows. I try to go by what people actually say and do (or don't say and do) rather than assuming I have any special insight regarding their motivations.  Doing that takes you down the rabbit hole real fast, next thing you know you're voting for a conspiracy theorist for president of the United States.
Click to expand...
I think we both follow politics enough to know how Washington works, while I certainly won't speak in terms of absolutes I believe it unlikely that Cummings releases that Powell email without coordination with the Clinton campaign.  

In regards to your statement that you go by what people actually say, I'm curious to which of the conflicting statements Hillary has made over the last two years regarding the email situation do you go by?

 
Sand said:
You can expect Reince to be biased - he is.  I've heard a bit of commentary both on TV and radio this morning and the concencus is that both were pretty bad.
Click to expand...
I'm watching Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox Business, Bloomberg, Euronews and reading articles on Fox News, NYT, USA Today, RCP and 538 and several others. The only consensus I'm seeing is that one candidate addressed the issues respectfully and carefully, and another candidate went off the rails on at least 3 topics: "Taking oil", the military suicides, and the military sexual assaults. 

This is the typical response now: "They're both bad, so Trump." Unreal.

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
I think we both follow politics enough to know how Washington works, while I certainly won't speak in terms of absolutes I believe it unlikely that Cummings releases that Powell email without coordination with the Clinton campaign.  

In regards to your statement that you go by what people actually say, I'm curious to which of the conflicting statements Hillary has made over the last two years regarding the email situation do you go by?
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by "regarding the email situation."  There's a lot of different things going on there. 

Although admittedly I just don't care about it that much. She made a mistake. I criticized her for it.  Her mistake wasn't really close criminal in nature, as I had explained and Comey has agreed since. End of story as far as I'm concerned, at least until she returns to elected office, at which point I think she would warrant a little more oversight on information security.

If she was running in a primary race against Obama or something I might pay more attention to the nuances of what she's said about it in recent months, but she's not.  She's running against a bigoted moronic scam artist. Seems like a waste of time to parse it too much at this juncture.

 
TobiasFunke said:
We've already been there, like 50 times.  At least. It's been shown both objectively (fact check service statistics) and analytically (first campaign not to bother responding to press inquiries asking for clarifications of apparent misstatements, continued defense of misstatements by the candidate even when presented with contrary facts, etc.).

This isn't a Clinton vs Trump thing.  It's an "every presidential candidate at their absolute fullest of ####, from Clinton to Nixon and everyone between and before, vs Trump."  And Trump is the worst by a landslide. He's post-facts and post-accountability. It's one of the true dangers of his presidency.  You don't grasp that at all, and that's fine, but it's weird to keep asking about it after it's been answered so many times.
Click to expand...
Your issue is that he ignores them or shouts them down when they call him on his lying.  My issue is the lying itself.  I don't really care how any of them respond to being called on their lies.  I care that they are lying their asses off at every opportunity.  That's what I care about.  In that light, I don't see a point trying to make a distinction between them.  Essentially, I have drawn the line of tolerance before where you draw the line.  I think that's our difference anyway.  So when I commented on Tim's post and he's focused on the lying (and not how they handle being called on their lies) I think it's a legit question.

 
The Commish said:
Your issue is that he ignores them or shouts them down when they call him on his lying.  My issue is the lying itself.  I don't really care how any of them respond to being called on their lies.  I care that they are lying their asses off at every opportunity.  That's what I care about.  In that light, I don't see a point trying to make a distinction between them.  Essentially, I have drawn the line of tolerance before where you draw the line.  I think that's our difference anyway.  So when I commented on Tim's post and he's focused on the lying (and not how they handle being called on their lies) I think it's a legit question.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true, as the fact checker data clearly shows.

And I still don't think you're getting the difference between who lies (everyone, varying degrees, including every politician and and non-politician ever) and who shows some basic level of accountability for what they say, especially if it misleads people into irrational anger towards other people or groups (Clinton and pretty much everyone on earth except Trump and other sociopaths).

It's not a question of where you draw the line- although even if it was your line would be comically impractical because everyone says things that are not true. It's a question of whether we even care about holding candidates accountable not only for being truthful but for the consequences of failing to do so.  To my knowledge no Clinton lie has ever encouraged people to unfairly scapegoat races, religions or ethnic minorities.  THAT's what makes the Trump lies, and his refusal to be accountable for them so dangerous.

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
Who are the folks in this thread that are for Trump?  It seems to be a big leap that anyone who is critical of Hillary is therefore advocating for Trump. 
Click to expand...


The Commish said:
Your issue is that he ignores them or shouts them down when they call him on his lying.  My issue is the lying itself.  I don't really care how any of them respond to being called on their lies.  I care that they are lying their asses off at every opportunity.  That's what I care about.  In that light, I don't see a point trying to make a distinction between them.  Essentially, I have drawn the line of tolerance before where you draw the line.  I think that's our difference anyway.  So when I commented on Tim's post and he's focused on the lying (and not how they handle being called on their lies) I think it's a legit question.
Click to expand...


MaxThreshold said:
How heavy is that water you're carrying for Hillary?  A Liar is a ####### liar and neither one of them are fit to be President by every objective measure.  At all.  Ever.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the "they are both liars" argument is not being used? As far as I'm concerned, If no one's voting for Trump, that's fine. I'm not arguing at all that Hillary shouldn't be called out, she absolutely should be.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Are you saying the "they are both liars" argument is not being used? As far as I'm concerned, If no one's voting for Trump, that's fine. I'm not arguing at all that Hillary shouldn't be called out, she absolutely should be.
Click to expand...
Yes it is being used but you wrote therefore Trump which to me indicated that those making the both liars argument were advocating for Trump.  I'm not sure how else to interpret it.

 
BassNBrew said:
That would also apply to your gal.
Click to expand...
Not remotely true, but don't let that stop you.

At this point we've had the same conversation about the vast differences between number lies, rates of lying, accountability for lies, willingness to respond to press inquiries about lies, etc. so many times that I'm starting to think that posts like there are some sort of meta performance art.  "Lying about Lying- A FFA commentary on the Trump candidacy"

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
Yes it is being used but you wrote therefore Trump which to me indicated that those making the both liars argument were advocating for Trump.  I'm not sure how else to interpret it.
Click to expand...
Without making blanket statements about what "everyone" is doing, yes the both liars argument is mostly being used by Trump supporters. Why should it be confined to this thread? If it's also being used by Johnson supporters, terrific, they're both liars.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Romney said that Obama didn't say "terrorism" in the speech about the Benghazi attacks.  Crowley said "yeah, he did."  It turns out they were both sorta right, depending upon how you looked at it.
Click to expand...
Vaguely remember this. The moderator should be careful and obviously correct but if they are asking follow ups of both that then that's what I what to see.

If the moderator turns out to be wrong it gets figured out afterwards.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Without making blanket statements about what "everyone" is doing, yes the both liars argument is mostly being used by Trump supporters. Why should it be confined to this thread? If it's also being used by Johnson supporters, terrific, they're both liars.
Click to expand...
No surprise...in the Alinsky thinking it is a means to an ends...I think there are many Hillary supporters that don't care if she lies as long as it results in her defeating the opponent...same as Obamacare...he knew he was fibbing but it got the desired results and his supporters had zero issues with it because of that...to say she is not a liar or corrupt is laughable...spin it all you want but you are talking about a person who said she was under sniper fire when she wasn't and said she was named after someone she wasn't...can it be more basic than that...she lies effortlessly when there is no reason to...there was a time when a Hillary supporter was outraged over 18 minutes of deleted tape but now they could give a rat's a** about the never-ending nonsense this woman partakes in...the difference is the deleted 18 minutes involved an R and the tens of thousands of deleted emails involve a D...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So Hillary just tweeted this - 

Hillary Clinton  @HillaryClinton
We’re going to guarantee equal pay for women. It is long overdue. hrc.io/2cnPxMW

--

I went to her website and there is some good information there - and she lays out 4 steps in how she will guarantee it. The question I have, though, is unequal pay really true? I mean, for there to be unequal pay, you have to be comparing apples to apples.

I know anecdotal evidence is not persuasive, but I've been in finance/accounting before law school and then a lawyer afterward (obviously). I don't get how men and women could even be paid differently in those fields based on gender. I've never seen that happen.

On Hillary's site, it says:

What Causes the Wage Gap?

There are a lot of reasons for the gap, including the types of work women and men typically do. Women dominate fields like teaching and clerical work, which tend to pay less than male-dominated fields. Women are also the majority of low-wage and minimum-wage workers.

But there’s a lot more to the story. 

Even within the same jobs, women often earn less than men. Last year, Hillary met a young man who told her that when he was 17, he had landed his first job as a cashier, working side-by-side with his mom. When he brought home his first paycheck, he discovered he was making a dollar more an hour after one week than his mom was making after doing the same job for four years. 

Stories like this are all too common. In some cases, they’re about discrimination. But there are other, more subtle factors. Culture and gender norms influence what women study in school, the opportunities that are open to them, and how responsibilities at home affect their careers. And they’re more likely than men to be hindered by outdated workplace policies.

--

I don't really think that answers my question. Maybe I'm missing something - but is there really a gender wage gap? When you compare similarly qualified people doing similar jobs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
This is simply not true, as the fact checker data clearly shows.

And I still don't think you're getting the difference between who lies (everyone, varying degrees, including every politician and and non-politician ever) and who shows some basic level of accountability for what they say, especially if it misleads people into irrational anger towards other people or groups (Clinton and pretty much everyone on earth except Trump and other sociopaths).

It's not a question of where you draw the line- although even if it was your line would be comically impractical because everyone says things that are not true. It's a question of whether we even care about holding candidates accountable not only for being truthful but for the consequences of failing to do so.  To my knowledge no Clinton lie has ever encouraged people to unfairly scapegoat races, religions or ethnic minorities.  THAT's what makes the Trump lies, and his refusal to be accountable for them so dangerous.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not sure I'm going here.  I don't pretend to know what motivates a person.  If you want to argue that Trump provides rocks for bad people to hide behind with his lying, that's something we can agree on.  I'm not sure these people need his lies to hide behind, but that's a different discussion.  And to be honest, I don't know if a Clinton lie specifically has ever encouraged any of this sort of thing.  I DO know her brand of politics is pretty divisive especially when she gets into the identity politics arena.  The net result of both approaches is divisiveness.  However, the noticeable difference between the approaches is Clinton's ability to wrap it in political speak to soften the perceived blow while Trump, well, Trump.  He doesn't get that very important part of politics...clearly.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Baloney Sandwich said:
Who are the folks in this thread that are for Trump?  It seems to be a big leap that anyone who is critical of Hillary is therefore advocating for Trump. 
Click to expand...


The Commish said:
Your issue is that he ignores them or shouts them down when they call him on his lying.  My issue is the lying itself.  I don't really care how any of them respond to being called on their lies.  I care that they are lying their asses off at every opportunity.  That's what I care about.  In that light, I don't see a point trying to make a distinction between them.  Essentially, I have drawn the line of tolerance before where you draw the line.  I think that's our difference anyway.  So when I commented on Tim's post and he's focused on the lying (and not how they handle being called on their lies) I think it's a legit question.
Click to expand...


MaxThreshold said:
How heavy is that water you're carrying for Hillary?  A Liar is a ####### liar and neither one of them are fit to be President by every objective measure.  At all.  Ever.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the "they are both liars" argument is not being used? As far as I'm concerned, If no one's voting for Trump, that's fine. I'm not arguing at all that Hillary shouldn't be called out, she absolutely should be.
Click to expand...
No, he's asking you a very direct question.  They are both liars....that's not an argument, that's a fact.  Pointing out that they are both liars isn't siding with Trump.  My comment was specific to a standard I go by and it is candidate independent.  You may disagree with the standard, and that discussion is one we could have, but this is the second or third time you've tried to make more of my words than what I actually said.  

 
whoknew said:
What Causes the Wage Gap?

There are a lot of reasons for the gap, including the types of work women and men typically do. Women dominate fields like teaching and clerical work, which tend to pay less than male-dominated fields. Women are also the majority of low-wage and minimum-wage workers.

---

I don't really think that answers my question. Maybe I'm missing something - but is there really a gender wage gap? When you compare similarly qualified people doing similar jobs?
Click to expand...
The pay gap is a myth.  Very simple controls on the data bring the "wage gap" down less than 5%.   I read another study that showed young women are earning a bit more than young men right now.

And to the first point, if you want women to expand to higher paying fields (as HRC obviously wants) we'd have to be pretty comfortable with killing an extra few thousand women per year to go along with it.  Men get paid more in these fields because many of them are inherently much more dangerous.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
And not a peep from the usual suspects here, either.
Click to expand...
But it's basically what some of us have been saying all along. Her actions with regard to the emails was regrettable. It was obviously an attempt to skirt FOIA, though she'll never admit it. She prevericated on some of her answers because it made her look bad. But there's no evidence of a real cover up like Watergate, and no evidence of corruption of any sort.

Likewise, the Clinton Foundation has had some contributors who sought to gain some sort of influence from Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. But there's no evidence that she ever gave anything in return for it. So for those who continually shout "pay to play!": there is pay here, but no play.

Likewise Congress had about 9 separate committees investigate the deaths on Benghazi, and they found...nothing. The House grilled Hillary for several hours on this subject and they found...nothing. No evidence that Hillary did anything wrong, or lied to anyone.

So in looking back at the 3 "pillars" of Hillary's supposed corruption: the email scandal, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi- there is nothing there. It's all bogus. Yet her enemies have been successful at using these 3 stories to paint Hillary as a corrupt person, and the public believes it. But no rational person who looks carefully at the facts should come away with any conclusion besides a full exoneration of Hillary Clinton. 

 
Sand said:
The pay gap is pretty much a myth.  Very simple controls on the data bring the "wage gap" down to 5%.   I read another study that showed young women are earning a bit more than young men right now.

And to the first point, if you want women to expand to higher paying fields (as HRC obviously wants) we'd have to be pretty comfortable with killing an extra few thousand women per year to go along with it.  Men get paid more in these fields because many of them are inherently much more dangerous.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Sand, for being willing to discuss actual POLICY in this thread rather than scandal.

While I suspect your comment on this increasing fatalities is a bit over the top (and a false correlation), I have a feeling you're right on the rest of it. There are conflicting arguments and evidence about this, but generally I think that trying to force equal pay for women would create an unnecessary bureaucracy without solving any existing problems. 

 
timschochet said:
From any accusations of corruption or criminal activity or the notion that she is generally a dishonest person. 

YOuR criticism, that she is not competent enough with technology, is valid, though I disagree. 
Click to expand...
What does "generally dishonest" mean exactly?  There's no question she's lied.  She may not be a pathological liar, but she's pretty comfortable doing it.  Would you disagree?

 
The Commish said:
What does "generally dishonest" mean exactly?  There's no question she's lied.  She may not be a pathological liar, but she's pretty comfortable doing it.  Would you disagree?
Click to expand...
No. Most high level politicians are comfortable with lying (perhaps I should say all). But for a politician I don't believe she is especially dishonest, which has been the inference by many in this thread and elsewhere. Meanwhile I think her opponent is off the charts dishonest to a degree we have never seen before. 

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
What does "generally dishonest" mean exactly?  There's no question she's lied.  She may not be a pathological liar, but she's pretty comfortable doing it.  Would you disagree?
Click to expand...
No. Most high level politicians are comfortable with lying (perhaps I should say all). But for a politician I don't believe she is especially dishonest, which has been the inference by many in this thread and elsewhere. Meanwhile I think her opponent is off the charts dishonest to a degree we have never seen before. 
Click to expand...
Fair enough....it's certainly an interesting position you find yourself in, I'd think.  I raised this in conversation with TF a few pages ago, but it didn't go anywhere.  You guys think that Trump is the liar and can't trust a single word he says, but at the same time, you are fearful of all the things he's saying.  I'm not sure how you guys work through that inconsistency, but it's interesting consider.  If there's anything I am fearful of in any form it's the fear of the unknown with Trump.  I can't say I believe a single thing that's come out of his mouth thus far.  Sure, all these things he says COULD happen, but what's the likelihood? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
And not a peep from the usual suspects here, either.
Click to expand...


SaintsInDome2006 said:
This should be really simple:

- I don't think the fact of the dinner conversation - 4-5 old SOS's sitting around telling war stories over wine 7 years ago - is as important as what was said at the dinner conversation. Ok maybe there was a dinner conversation - but Powell did not remember what was said and apparently there is also a memo where he documented his views on the subject. Where is that? Why are we talking about a dinner convo 7 years ago when there is a freakin' MEMO which Hillary has not turned over?

...
Click to expand...


SaintsInDome2006 said:
;)

So. SOS Powell wrote a memo. Was that an 'email memo' as in he wrote her a memo by email? Or is that a traditional hard copy memo about email?

Hillary's emails before around March 18, 2009 are "missing."
Click to expand...
I think you understand now the dinner conversation in June 2009 was irrelevant.

The memo was what mattered.

Do you have a link to it, I mean the actual memo? Has it been released?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Here's the actual Powell email memo to Hillary.

- Funny how a person who can't find any email received from before mid March 2009 has her email from January 2009 turn up. Funny how that keeps happening.

- Key takeaway: "If it is public that you have a Blackberry and its is government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law."

- Hillary told the FBI that Powell's memo did not factor into her decision.
Click to expand...
Let me repost the Harwood tweet which was posted earlier:

Powell message to Clinton shows her email choices were much closer to typical govt-official behavior than discussion of issue has indicated

Nothing that you just posted contradicts this point, which is the MAIN point, which suggests that Hillary did nothing corrupt here.

 
timschochet said:
Let me repost the Harwood tweet which was posted earlier:

Powell message to Clinton shows her email choices were much closer to typical govt-official behavior than discussion of issue has indicated

Nothing that you just posted contradicts this point, which is the MAIN point, which suggests that Hillary did nothing corrupt here.
Click to expand...
other than using a private secret server without permission?

 
timschochet said:
Let me repost the Harwood tweet which was posted earlier:

Powell message to Clinton shows her email choices were much closer to typical govt-official behavior than discussion of issue has indicated

Nothing that you just posted contradicts this point, which is the MAIN point, which suggests that Hillary did nothing corrupt here.
Click to expand...
Except that Powell told her her blackberry and personal email communications would be public, whereupon she put everything on a private server and then destroyed whatever she wanted after a subpoena and after the NYT ran the story publicizing the part where he said "If it is public that you have a Blackberry..."

Yeah that part is very corrupt.

Tim, try taking a crack at reading the memo and making your own mind up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Fair enough....it's certainly an interesting position you find yourself in, I'd think.  I raised this in conversation with TF a few pages ago, but it didn't go anywhere.  You guys think that Trump is the liar and can't trust a single word he says, but at the same time, you are fearful of all the things he's saying.  I'm not sure how you guys work through that inconsistency, but it's interesting consider.  If there's anything I am fearful of in any form it's the fear of the unknown with Trump.  I can't say I believe a single thing that's come out of his mouth thus far.  Sure, all these things he says COULD happen, but what's the likelihood? 
Click to expand...
You raise a good question and it's a bit of a dilemma I find myself in when I consider Donald Trump. How much of this crap does he actually mean? Sometimes I get the feeling that deep down he's not a bad guy at all, he's not racist really or bigoted, he's just playing a game he wants to win. And if that's all true then my guess is if he's elected he'll be extremely cautious, follow very closely the guidance of his advisors (who are very conservative but, with the exception of Bannon, for the most part pretty rational) and do nothing too radical. If that happens, I can live with it. It's not what I would prefer politically at this time, but we'll make do. 

On the other hand, if he means even half the crap that he says, it will be the worst Presidency in American history and I shudder to think of the consequences. And that's a chance I really don't want to take. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Except that Powell told her her blackberry and personal email communications would be public, whereupon she put everything on a private server and then destroyed whatever she wanted after a subpoena and after the NYT ran the story publicizing the part where he said " If it is public that you have a Blackberry..."

Yeah that part is very corrupt.
Click to expand...
Not in my view it isn't. But that's because I reject your statement "and then destroyed whatever she wanted"- there's no evidence of that. She had personal emails destroyed. 

 
timschochet said:
You raise a good question and it's a bit of a dilemma I find myself in when I consider Donald Trump. How much of this crap does he actually mean? Sometimes I get the feeling that deep down he's not a bad guy at all, he's not racist really or bigoted, he's just playing a game he wants to win. And if that's all true then my guess is if he's elected he'll be extremely cautious, follow very closely the guidance of his advisors (who are very conservative but, with the exception of Bannon, for the most part pretty rational) and do nothing too radical. If that happens, I can live with it. It's not what I would prefer politically at this time, but we'll make do. 

On the other hand, if he means even half the crap that he says, it will be the worst Presidency in American history and I shudder to think of the consequences. And that's a chance I really don't want to take. 
Click to expand...
If you are willing to appeal to the worst in people - to promote racist and bigoted policies to get racist and bigoted people to vote for you - how good of a person can you really be? I would argue that guy is most definitely a bad guy - regardless of whether he is actually a racist. Or bigot.

 
timschochet said:
Thank you, Sand, for being willing to discuss actual POLICY in this thread rather than scandal.

While I suspect your comment on this increasing fatalities is a bit over the top (and a false correlation), I have a feeling you're right on the rest of it. There are conflicting arguments and evidence about this, but generally I think that trying to force equal pay for women would create an unnecessary bureaucracy without solving any existing problems. 
Click to expand...
I'm not going to pretend like this didn't hurt. 

But what are the existing problems that need solving in the equal pay for women realm?

 
timschochet said:
So what? It wasn't illegal. 
Click to expand...
It was improper and unauthorized.

3 separate things going on:

1. Dodging USGov IT and transparency laws. - Civil law violation. In many states this can be criminal so it's astounding to learn it's not criminal for the feds.

- However I would think that destroying documents under Congressional subpoena would be a crime.

2. Mishandling of classified information. Well see the FBI report and notes. (And actually I need to post about that report, which has been released I believe).

3. Political corruption at Teneo and Foundation, ie the documents which were destroyed. We don't know there were crimes underlying those documents but it's really something that Hillary took every step she could to try to wipe them off the face of the earth rather than chance the authorities recovering them..

 
timschochet said:
Not in my view it isn't. But that's because I reject your statement "and then destroyed whatever she wanted"- there's no evidence of that. She had personal emails destroyed. 
Click to expand...
You realize those emails in the thousands are about to be released and that State and US Gov doesn't release personal emails, right?

 
The Commish said:
Fair enough....it's certainly an interesting position you find yourself in, I'd think.  I raised this in conversation with TF a few pages ago, but it didn't go anywhere.  You guys think that Trump is the liar and can't trust a single word he says, but at the same time, you are fearful of all the things he's saying.  I'm not sure how you guys work through that inconsistency, but it's interesting consider.  If there's anything I am fearful of in any form it's the fear of the unknown with Trump.  I can't say I believe a single thing that's come out of his mouth thus far.  Sure, all these things he says COULD happen, but what's the likelihood? 
Click to expand...
I think I may possibly have found the disconnect we've been having on this.

I don't think anyone fears that the things he's saying will come to fruition. At least I don't. The issue is that the things he's saying are problematic if the president says them (and the electorate condones them) even if they don't happen.

For example- I don't actually think he's going to ban Muslims from entry to the US, for a number of reasons.  But even the proposal is a huge problem if he wins, because (1) a president of the United States who is willing to antagonize moderate Muslms like that feeds right into the extremist script of triggering a "holy war"- frankly some of the crap he says might as well have been written by ISIS PR, and (2) it would really bother me if Americans were willing to tolerate a president who proposed something I consider so fundamentally un-American.  It has terrible implications for the future of this whole American experiment.

Also, remember that the nonstop lying is just one of the many problems I have with Trump.  We may not know what he'll do as president because what he says is so inconsistent, but his stupidity, his carelessness, his lack of intellectual curiosity or attention to detail, his tendency to listen to and surround himself with the absolute worst human beings that American politics has to offer, his dangerous vilification of the press and by extension the public's right to information- those are not things anyone could reasonably expect to go away when he's president.

 
whoknew said:
If you are willing to appeal to the worst in people - to promote racist and bigoted policies to get racist and bigoted people to vote for you - how good of a person can you really be? I would argue that guy is most definitely a bad guy - regardless of whether he is actually a racist. Or bigot.
Click to expand...
Yeah I can't argue with this. I try to see the best in everyone- even Phyllis Schafley when she died- but sometimes it's real difficult. 

 
timschochet said:
You raise a good question and it's a bit of a dilemma I find myself in when I consider Donald Trump. How much of this crap does he actually mean? Sometimes I get the feeling that deep down he's not a bad guy at all, he's not racist really or bigoted, he's just playing a game he wants to win. And if that's all true then my guess is if he's elected he'll be extremely cautious, follow very closely the guidance of his advisors (who are very conservative but, with the exception of Bannon, for the most part pretty rational) and do nothing too radical. If that happens, I can live with it. It's not what I would prefer politically at this time, but we'll make do. 

On the other hand, if he means even half the crap that he says, it will be the worst Presidency in American history and I shudder to think of the consequences. And that's a chance I really don't want to take. 
Click to expand...
you're being kind imo....if he means 10% of what he says.....that's more like it

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
253K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top