[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

[El_Machinae]

The chatter from people, who've had the surrogates mis-explain statistics to them, is horrifying.

 

[Phrossack]

Against all the heat emanating from my hatred of Donald Trump that burns hotter than the core of a thousand blazing suns, I honestly feel sorry for him. I don't think his family cares a wit for him, and the fact that he appears to be an emotionless monster completely lacking in empathy could largely be a product of how he was raised. I know it's cliche to posit the comedian who craves affirmation because they are miserable inside, but that's how I view Donald Trump, except he doesn't have the intelligence or wit to be funny. So he gains affirmation by tearing down the weak, by preying on women, and by saying things that are outside the social norm because he knows people will react to it.

Don't get me wrong, I of all people fully recognize that in the end this makes him a terrible human being. Somewhere along the way a person becomes responsible for their own brokenness if they don't take some ownership of it. But even in spite of myself, I pity him and the extraordinarily sad and lonely life he must lead, where the only way he gets anyone, even his own children, to spend time with him is through promises of money or power.

See, I have nothing but hatred for him.

Compare him to Medusa: She was a perfectly decent priestess who (in one version of the legend) was brutally raped by Poseidon in the temple to Athena in which she worked, and was punished for it by Athena; she was transformed into a hideous, murderous monster. It's tragic what happened to Medusa, but at the end of the day, she was still unfortunately a murderous monster who had to be destroyed.

Now look at Trump. He was raised by sociopaths who humiliated his older brother for not becoming the heir to the family business; his brother was driven to an alcoholic, depressed death. He was always taught to be a Winner, a Titan of Industry, and to never, ever admit wrongdoing or to be un-macho. He turned out to be a sociopathic, megalomaniacal egomaniac, a compulsive liar, and a pervert with a fragile ego and no moral compass whatsoever...but he still was handed a fortune by his father. He still chose to sexually assault women, and he still chose, again and again, to resort to race-baiting, inciting people to violence, openly musing about casually committing war crimes and using nuclear weapons, and attacking our own allies with them. He has a much flimsier excuse than Medusa, has committed worse actions, and has uglier hair.

 

[Takhisis]

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.

But again… NAFTA opening up Mexico has resulted in him having factories over there. Why is this suddenly ‘bad’?

 

[innonimatu]

Oh no, haven't you heard? Every war that has ever taken place is always somehow the US's fault.

I suspect that the french would have lost the war (failed to throw Libya into anarchy) if Hillary had not happily thrown the US administration being them. Or not even dared start it.

 

[Leoreth]

There we have Hillary the enabler again.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Oh no, haven't you heard? Every war that has ever taken place is always somehow the US's fault.

No, haven't you heard? It's not just the US's fault... It's Hillary's fault!

Not only is every War the US's fault but the current fad/trend is that its also specifically the fault of whoever the current US President is, regardless of when the problem started... For example, haven't you heard? "Obama is the founder of ISIS. He's the Founder! THE FOUNDER!! He Founded ISIS!! HE'S THE FOUNDER!!! THE FOUNDER OF ISIS!! And Hillary is the Co-Founder!" I have the proof right here on video:

Spoiler :

And that's a new twist ... everything being Hillary's fault... cause in fact, its really just a new level of US blaming... Pre-emptive POTUS blaming. Now you don't even have to be elected POTUS before they start blaming you for every single War on the planet. Hillary hasn't even won the election and she is already getting POTUS blame... which again, is just a form of US blaming/scapegoating.

Hey Commodore! Now that I think about it... That's a pretty good reason to vote for Hillary... to give a middle finger to all the US-haters that like to blame our Presidents, and by extension the US for everything.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Oh no, haven't you heard? Every war that has ever taken place is always somehow the US's fault.

US Civil war 2 ?
The war of Northen independence

Some Donald Trump Voters Warn of Revolution if Hillary Clinton Wins

“If push comes to shove,” he added, and Mrs. Clinton “has to go by any means necessary, it will be done.”

“It’s not what I’m going to do, but I’m scared that the country is going to go into a riot,” said Roger Pillath, 75, a retired teacher from Coleman, Wis. “I’ve never seen the country so divided, just black and white — there’s no compromise whatsoever. The Clinton campaign says together we are stronger, but there’s no together. The country has never been so divided. I’m looking at revolution right now.”

many to believe that there is no way Mr. Trump can lose, and that even contemplating the possibility is foolish. “I’d be shocked,” said Rick Hill, 58, of Fort Myers, Fla.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/donald-trump-voters.html?_r=0

 

[onejayhawk]

It's just word spin. I'll just say it for him: Bill Clinton was impeached in the House, he WAS tried in the Senate, and he was exonerated. There you go.

We can throw in some word spin allegations onto Bill Clinton, too--for mincing the meaning of "is" and "sexual relations". Meanwhile, while all eyes are looking to the left, to the right you've got clear-cut, involuntary sexual assault going on--by a married man--on a married woman. Hey, let's vote him in! Because what Bill Clinton did (who isn't even running for office) is so bad!

He was acquitted not exonerated, much like OJ.

Bill Clinton is the master of spin. He always has been. It is spin to say he is not running for a third term.

There we have Hillary the enabler again.

Hillary's mistreatment of women is a minor sidelight.

@Sommerswerd. That's one of Trump's more defensible statements. He does bear most of the blame.

J

 

[tetley]

He was acquitted not exonerated, much like OJ.

Bill Clinton is the master of spin. He always has been. It is spin to say he is not running for a third term.

"He was acquitted, not exonerated."

Very next sentence...

"Bill Clinton is the master of spin, not me." - J

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

"There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices," Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in Colorado on Wednesday, in remarks first reported by The Washington Post. "I would note, just recently, that Justice (Stephen) Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That's a debate that we are going to have."

Haha gotta love it. I hope Hillary nominates an effing commie.

 

[onejayhawk]

"He was acquitted, not exonerated."

Very next sentence...

"Bill Clinton is the master of spin, not me." - J

If you are going to quote, at least be accurate. Just saying.

IMO the evidence showed Bill Clinton to be guilty of the charges. Specifically, he was guilty of obstructing a federal investigation, which is a felony. It also would have been the charge against Nixon had he not resigned. Of the two, Clinton is far worse and Hillary is more of the same. It is no coincidence that RICO is Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. The Clintons are all about influence.

Just to be clear. As a President, Bill Clinton was pretty good. Unlike President Obama, he could find ways to work with a hostile Congress. The result was a balanced budget. Like Henry VIII, his appetites were balanced against real skill. Hillary has the destructive appetites but none of the skill.

J

 

[Kyriakos]

Hey Commodore! Now that I think about it... That's a pretty good reason to vote for Hillary... to give a middle finger to all the US-haters that like to blame our Presidents, and by extension the US for everything.

This is priceless.

 

[Sommerswerd]

@Sommerswerd. That's one of Trump's more defensible statements. He does bear most of the blame.

First, if you think Trump calling Pres Obama "the Founder of ISIS" is one of his "more defensible" statements... then that means two things... a) You recognize that almost nothing he says is remotely defensible and b) You are at Kellyanne Conway's level, and should seriously be looking into becoming a political operative.

Second, don't gloss over the rest of my point... by joining the chorus of "It's Pres Obama's fault" you are simultaneously (perhaps unwittingly) letting your partisanship turn you into a "blame-America-first", America-hater. POTUS blaming is just a flimsy disguise for America-blaming, because the POTUS is essentially America's Avatar. If that is your intent, fine, knock yourself out, but somehow you don't strike me as the "blame-America-first", type. You can criticize Pres Obama without falling into the "blame-America-first" trap.

This is priceless.

Thanks. I take it as a compliment that this is all you have to say .

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Breaking News: the FBI is reviewing new emails that pertain to the email scandal with Hillary.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/polit...r-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html

In other news: Trump "jokes" that we should just cancel the election and give him the presidency. LOL
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-election-cancel-230414

 

[Kyriakos]

First, if you think Trump calling Pres Obama "the Founder of ISIS" is one of his "more defensible" statements... then that means two things... a) You recognize that almost nothing he says is remotely defensible and b) You are at Kellyanne Conway's level, and should seriously be looking into becoming a political operative.

Second, don't gloss over the rest of my point... by joining the chorus of "It's Pres Obama's fault" you are simultaneously (perhaps unwittingly) letting your partisanship turn you into a "blame-America-first", America-hater. POTUS blaming is just a flimsy disguise for America-blaming, because the POTUS is essentially America's Avatar. If that is your intent, fine, knock yourself out, but somehow you don't strike me as the "blame-America-first", type. You can criticize Pres Obama without falling into the "blame-America-first" trap.
Thanks. I take it as a compliment that this is all you have to say .

Thanks. I meant that this is what Trump himself would say, so you are in "good" company. Bigly ^_^

 

[Gori the Grey]

In other news: Trump "jokes" that we should just cancel the election and give him the presidency. LOL
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-election-cancel-230414

Over on the non-RD thread, I just gave my serious reaction to this latest lunacy from Trump. I'll repeat it here, spoilered so you can ignore it if you've read it in the other thread, since this serious thread is where it really belongs:

Spoiler :

I can't let myself get so exhausted and numbed by Trump's unstinting idiocy that I just let this pass as ho-hum more-of-the-same. I find two things objectionable in this, one more obvious, one more subtle. The obvious one, of course, is how blatantly undemocratic this is. The way that a democracy "gives" the presidency to one of the candidates is through an election. The more subtle one concerns his reference to the "we" that would undertake this action. Now, on one level, the "we" is the audience at the rally at which the passage was spoken. So that's the undemocratic strain in the thought: the wish that only his supporters would have a say in deciding the presidency. But set aside the particular "we" that he has in mind, separately from that, or more fundamentally than that, Trump's mind runs to some imagined outside authority that can do things (like give away an election) independently. It's of a piece with his comments that Hillary shouldn't be "allowed" to run. Allowed by whom? Who do you imagine having the authority to make such allowances? Part of what he has in mind in that case is her (as he sees it) crimes: that if she were properly convicted for her mishandling of e-mails, she would be legally prevented from running. But that's not the term he uses. He uses "allowed"--again, as though there's some larger authoritative body (the Illuminati?) that has this power to "allow" or to "give." For me, even above and beyond the undemocratic strain in Trump's comments here, that turn of mind that imagines the existence of some unspecified authority who can do this or that is not a quality that I want to see in a chief executive.

 

[Kyriakos]

Over on the non-RD thread, I just gave my serious reaction to this latest lunacy from Trump. I'll repeat it here, spoilered so you can ignore it if you've read it in the other thread, since this serious thread is where it really belongs:

Spoiler :

I can't let myself get so exhausted and numbed by Trump's unstinting idiocy that I just let this pass as ho-hum more-of-the-same. I find two things objectionable in this, one more obvious, one more subtle. The obvious one, of course, is how blatantly undemocratic this is. The way that a democracy "gives" the presidency to one of the candidates is through an election. The more subtle one concerns his reference to the "we" that would undertake this action. Now, on one level, the "we" is the audience at the rally at which the passage was spoken. So that's the undemocratic strain in the thought: the wish that only his supporters would have a say in deciding the presidency. But set aside the particular "we" that he has in mind, separately from that, or more fundamentally than that, Trump's mind runs to some imagined outside authority that can do things (like give away an election) independently. It's of a piece with his comments that Hillary shouldn't be "allowed" to run. Allowed by whom? Who do you imagine having the authority to make such allowances? Part of what he has in mind in that case is her (as he sees it) crimes: that if she were properly convicted for her mishandling of e-mails, she would be legally prevented from running. But that's not the term he uses. He uses "allowed"--again, as though there's some larger authoritative body (the Illuminati?) that has this power to "allow" or to "give." For me, even above and beyond the undemocratic strain in Trump's comments here, that turn of mind that imagines the existence of some unspecified authority who can do this or that is not a quality that I want to see in a chief executive.

Going by the video in that link, with the latest Trumpism, it looks somewhat obvious he isn't expecting the election to be canceled, so isn't it clearly a joke? You may find it in bad-taste (it is), but it isn't a serious statement to cancel the elections. He says there "i will lower business tax to 15%, Hillary wants to raise it to 45%, so why do we even have this election".
It is not like there aren't yuge numbers of things to dislike in Trump, so why misrepresent something like this

 

[Leoreth]

It's clearly a joke. That's why it needs to be taken seriously.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's clearly a joke. That's why it needs to be taken seriously.

I read you. Peace is War.

 

[Leoreth]

You mean like Trump is Clinton and Clinton is Trump? Please.

I know this isn't easy to understand when you live in a banana republic, but democracy and elections are serious. We cannot tolerate someone making jokes about that. So we need to take it seriously when someone does.