I've not yet found a clip of him giving a cogent policy talk.
[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.
- Thread starter onejayhawk
- Start date
- Status
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
It is not her machine. She is the front person but not the decision maker.
Please differentiate criminal acts from felonies. Most people will violate a law occasionally. Most people do not commit felonies. IMO Hillary (and Bill) Clinton have committed multiple felonies and evaded prosecution. Comparisons to Nixon are unfair. Nixon could only dream of the treatment the FBI gave Hillary.
Finally, something we can agree about. NAFTA was a Bush I initiative carried out under Clinton. It is one of the more bi-partisan success stories of that decade. The balanced budget was another, but that was more confrontational.
J
Last edited:
I think most centrists are pro-trade. And I think that most centrists are pro 'help those displaced by trade'. We tend to fall for the "let's subsidize them!" trap, 'cause it's easy. But the solutions for those displaced by trade, otherwise, need cross-aisle support. You can go Right. You can go Left. Both can work. But there's a reason why we fall for "Let's subsidize them!" instead.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
That does not mean most centrists are open border. That is a very different issue. I happen to be both.
J
Well, I am demanding explanations from the Donald, who says NAFTA is ‘a disaster’.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Hitlery broke into the Republicans campaign HQ to search for dirt ?
Hitlery arranged for attacks on the Free Media including branding media as unpatriotic ?
Hitlery dug up and order investigations to find information to blackmail opponents ?
Hitlery is openly racist against a minority group of people ?
G,W,Bush was openly corrupt and incompetent and Republicans help cover that up, and went on to re-elect him into power.
Hell the FBI director openly LIED to the American people under direction from President Bush.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,004
It's a perfect illustration of both your and Sommer's points. I wouldn't use the term "playing" him, but the interview concerns birtherism--rather than the things Trump says at the outset he wants to talk about (China devaluing its currency and it and other countries "beating us")--because Wolf wants it to be about birtherisim. The sign of that is the prepared clips that Wolf asks his producer to play at certain points in the interview.
But at the same time, Trump is perfectly willing to have the entire interview concern birtherism for exactly the reason Sommer gives:
Trump is happy to stay on birtherism (despite his protests) because, if Wolf had asked him to elaborate on China devaluing his currency (by what percent? precisely what impact is that likely to have on the US economy?), Trump wouldn't have had anything to say.
You're may feel right to fault Wolf for not asking serious questions about the supposedly serious topics Trump supposedly wants to talk about. But as Wolf says during the course of the interview "I've known you a long time." Wolf knows from long experience that if he asks Trump serious questions about serious issues, he will get garbage. Precisely what impact is China's devaluation of its currency likely to have on the US economy? They're beating us. Lots of countries are beating us. We don't win any more. That's what I'm saying. We don't win anymore. When is the last time America won?
I've listened to scores, maybe hundreds, of interviews of Trump over the election season. He never goes one inch of depth below his initial statement. It's not the reporters' fault. Wolf's topic for that day was birtherism, so yes, he was going to talk about that. But I've watched dozens of reporters ask him earnest questions about his supposed policies. All you get is more drivel.
It's more like carnival barker patter than conversation as you and I understand it.
You will search in vain.
Last edited:
I got fooled by a few titles!
Absolutely. I certainly know 'open border' proponents, but they're usually reasonably far on the right or the left. Never centrist.
Okay, so it goes to the State Supreme Courts first, thanks.
Good point.
I'd like to offer 3) carbon copies of mainstream Republican policy in areas where he doesn't care one way or the other.
I have a very strong suspicion that two of his most emphatic points (which seem to drive significant segments of his support), 2nd amendment and anti-abortion, actually also fall in that category.
"Clinton machine" is a Trump campaign term designed to dehumanise the Clinton campaign. Notice how the Trump campaign is always a "movement" in contrast. A machine is controlled, i.e. top-down. A movement is bottom-up.
I think it's Clinton with the gaffes here even, considering her husbands comments on the ACA.
The general Trump narrative on trade agreements is that they are bad because they allowed for US manufacturing jobs to be replaced by foreign competition. Trump is different from most free trade critics in that he apparently believes this is not a fundamental flaw of free trade agreements themselves, instead he thinks that the treaties currently in place are "bad deals" where politicians were screwed over by foreign governments, although I'm not sure whether he mainly contends it is because of incompetence or some form of globalist corruption.
Even with that background it is kind of curious why he is focusing so much on NAFTA compared to other trade agreements. Considering how topical TPP is, that's really weird. I have a couple of potential explanations to offer:
1) NAFTA was negotiated during the Clinton administration, so it is a convenient venue of attack against the Clintons. Clinton is weak on TPP too though.
2) NAFTA includes Mexico, attacking NAFTA dovetails with his other criticism of open borders and Mexican immigration.
3) This is a bit more out there, but I think it's consistent with other confounding things Trump is obsessed with. NAFTA is from the 90s. For some reason, Trump's political outlook seems to be stuck in the late 80s and 90s. It's not just NAFTA, he is also acting as if Japan is a threatening competitor to the US like it's still the 80s, not to mention his outdated references to Rosie O'Donnell and so on.
I am two minutes into it. I am 100% convinced so far that Trump wants to talk about birtherism, and so does Blitzer. More importantly, Trump wants to complain about media bias against him and push that narrative, as its central to his campaign. He has no desire to talk about trade, and its obvious from the first words that come out of his mouth.
What Trump is doing is something folks do on these threads all the time... Make XYZ controversial or inflammatory claim, that they are fully aware is inflammatory, condescending, controversial etc., but preface it in the beginning, or disclaim it at the end by saying something like "I don't really want to get into all of this, but... XYZ" or "not to start an argument, but... XYZ" or "I don't really want to debate this issue, but...XYZ."
Trump opens up the interview by making a bunch of accusations against Blitzer and CNN, essentially calling them biased, unfair, liars etc... he knows full well that Blitzer is going to push back. Then he responds by doing it again, and adding that Blitzer essentially lied to him about what the interview topic was, then he claims "but I don't even want to talk about all that stuff I just accused you of, lying, bias, dishonesty, etc... I will suffer through all that and talk about China, in the unfair, handicapped state you've put me in with all your lying dishonest bias"... Please
He wants Blitzer to keep arguing with him about it, he's baiting Blitzer to stay on the subject of unfairness, birtherism... anything but what he claims he really wants to talk about. 
^Blitzer is your champion, then?
Btw, media people are not supposed to be on the same basis as a politician, given they are not relying on actual votes from the public.
Cnn seems to be much like Fox, only for the dem party candidates like Hillary, ie their helper/vested interest ridden media. Those channels have jokes as news people/journalists, who actively make the division in US society worse, and polarize all the more.
Cnn even had Piers lolgan for a couple of years.
Btw, media people are not supposed to be on the same basis as a politician, given they are not relying on actual votes from the public.
Cnn seems to be much like Fox, only for the dem party candidates like Hillary, ie their helper/vested interest ridden media. Those channels have jokes as news people/journalists, who actively make the division in US society worse, and polarize all the more.
Cnn even had Piers lolgan for a couple of years.
No Hillary is my champion. And when this interview was done President Obama was my champion. And you have CNN mixed up with MSNBC. CNN is seen as more of the middle ground network, although I think they lean left, and I think most conservatives would agree. MSNBC and FOX News are the pure-partisan networks, Democrat and Republican, respectively. I'll let it slide though, cause I know you are in Greece
@ El Machinae - BTW I finished watching and I realized why Trump was leaning so hard into the birtherism issue... This was during the 2012 campaign and he was campaigning for Romney... so of course he wanted to discuss birtherism... he was at the height of his birtherism crusade in those days as he was using the issue to try and undermine Pres Obama's re-election campaign... So yes I remain 100% convinced that Trump was inviting Blitzer to keep the interview on birtherism, rather than trade.
Even 7:20?
I realize now how the Dems outplayed the Republicans. By letting Birtherism infect the Tea Party so fully, and then releasing the certificate when they did, they were able to really demoralize the Center Right. It's good politics. Not sure if it's good governance.
I realize now how the Dems outplayed the Republicans. By letting Birtherism infect the Tea Party so fully, and then releasing the certificate when they did, they were able to really demoralize the Center Right. It's good politics. Not sure if it's good governance.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
By "crimes," J means multiple felonies. That is the context of the "Clinton machine" that wantonly goes around committing felonies which, despite a dozen or more investigations, nobody has any actual evidence of. I mean, I'm sure their drivers have occasionally exceeded the speed limit, but that's not really what we're talking about.
What felonies have they committed, J? What federal laws have they violated? Your opinion is that they have committed multiple felonies, so name them.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Or it goes to the District court. Which one it goes to is actually quite important
I've noticed this before too. I watched the Youtube of his rally in West Virginia, just after his opponents had dropped out and he had effectively clinched the nomination. Of course he was making a point to give his pro-coal and anti-environmental spiel, but he said that hairspray just wasn't the way it used to be now that they got rid of CFCs, made a bizarre statement about how CFCs can't get from his penthouse into the atmosphere, and so on. The thing is that CFCs were eliminated from consumer products in the early-to-mid 1990s and replaced mostly with HFCs, which have identical properties except not depleting the ozone layer (they still cause global warming though; see the recent Kigali agreement).
This problem was fully resolved 20 years ago, there was no real consumer impact, and nobody really talks about it anymore, except Trump. It's like he stopped actually paying any attention to politics circa 1995, and all of his issues are just recycled from 1980-95 or so, with no reference to anything that happened after that. It's like he had a mini-stroke sometime in the mid 1990s and stopped being able to form new memories related to political issues after that time.
But why? Why be maddened by it? Are you upset because you think his antics are fooling people into supporting him? Do you feel that his tactics are working? They're not. He's losing...bigly and he's gonna lose, and hopefully lose by a YUUGE margin, so all his nonsense is going to be rejected by the electorate as it should. In a way Gori, you're kinda like the guy who's team is winning the Superbowl by 12 points getting mad at the other team's QB for throwing yet another interception
There was one point in the video towards the end where I did think Trump was getting tired of getting hammered on birtherism and was trying to switch to China... but then, literally immediately as he finished his "I don't talk bitherism with Romney, I talk China and trade with him" spiel... he then went back to "but I know you (accusing CNN and Blitzer again) want to talk about birtherism cause that what gets ratings" or something along those lines. And he literally does that every time he hints at pivoting, he ends his remark by signaling that he wants to stay on bitherism and media bias.
As far as the Republicans being outplayed... This goes back to what we were discussing earlier. This outlook is a product of your perspective... The Democrats "let" birtherism infect the Tea Party?? How? The Democrats didn't "play" the Republicans on birtherism or this election, or anything else. Nor did "the media." Wolf Blitzer reported the facts, and the facts, accurately presented, made Trump and the Tea Party, and the Republicans look bad. That's not bias, that's doing his job. The Republicans look bad because their positions are bad, so when their positions are reported... they look bad. Again, if you are a conservative, that is difficult, if not impossible to accept, because you (the royal you) want to believe that at a minimum both parties positions have merit... and if the Republicans are made to look bad it must be media bias. But that's just blaming the messenger.
I have asked repeatedly for someone to cite a specific criminal statute violated by Clinton and have never received a response that was convincing.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,004
But why? Why be maddened by it? Are you upset because you think his antics are fooling people into supporting him? Do you feel that his tactics are working? They're not. He's losing...bigly and he's gonna lose, and hopefully lose by a YUUGE margin, so all his nonsense is going to be rejected by the electorate as it should. In a way Gori, you're kinda like the guy who's team is winning the Superbowl by 12 points getting mad at the other team's QB for throwing yet another interception
I'm enough of a moderate, or centrist, or whatever the right word is that I root for my country differently than I root for my football team. I think America is best served by having two viable parties. Given this particular race, I want a trouncing, the way I might want to see a cheating Belichek team trounced even when I don't care one way or another about the team playing the Patriots. But as a general principle, it's like a Super Bowl when your team isn't in it: you want it to be as close a game as possible.
Frankly, come to think of it, even if my own team is in the Super Bowl, I want as close a game as possible as long as its a victory for mine. We were tested. Makes the victory that much sweeter. The plays that mattered in securing the victory really mattered.
- Status
Similar threads
