OK, I'll be nice. FYI, the POTUS has lot of influence on trade and foreign policy. - https://www.theidiotboard.com/threads/elephants-and-jackasses.254446/page-18#post-575628 - https://www.theidiotboard.com/threads/elephants-and-jackasses.254446/page-11#post-575126 - https://www.theidiotboard.com/threads/elephants-and-jackasses.254446/page-5#post-574773 - https://www.theidiotboard.com/threads/elephants-and-jackasses.254446/page-6#post-574810 - https://www.theidiotboard.com/threads/elephants-and-jackasses.254446/page-11#post-575125 There's a few of my posts on the subject, and one from Oden. No, I don't think he's going to do all of it. Hillary is not even going to try to do these things. Electing a POTUS moving in the right direction on these issues is a start, and sends a clear message to the establishment about how the electorate feels. And again, while we cannot predict the future the POTUS is not at all powerless over these problems. Also, why I hate Hillary on foreign policy. - https://www.theidiotboard.com/threads/elephants-and-jackasses.254446/page-13#post-575385 Trump has stated several times that he is against the terrible arms deals with unethical middle eastern governments and irresponsibly arming rebels. He's also against announcing so many military actions beforehand. These are two good things, but yes, on this issue at least, he has been vague. He has not at all been vague on several of the issues I've discussed.
Some business successes, of which there are several dozen that netted millions. - The Apprentice - Grand Hyatt Hotels - Trump Tower - From Time magazine:
My problem with Trump is that I don't believe he's going to enact any change (not that he has any ability to do so anyway). I believe that if he were to be elected president, he would cede a lot of decision making to GOP leadership. As long as he got his ego stroked, he'd go along with the standard GOP platform. My problem with Trump is primarily a problem with the GOP. What do you mean, "fell back on Hillary"? I've been a Hillary supporter from the start. Her 'awful record' didn't change my position at all. And yes, I believe that she's better for down-ballot races than Bernie. But she's the democratic candidate so that's not an issue for discussion anymore. And yes, social issues are extremely important to me, which is partly a reflection of how much the GOP has regressed: 1. Their view on climate change is complete loony toons. 20 years ago, 30 years ago, the climate change argument between Democrats and Republicans would likely be whether or not it was best addressed by government action or free market / private initiative. But today's GOP wants to deny its very existence, for reasons I can barely fathom. 2. And then there's the social issues that are very important to me. I detest the GOP's attack on reproductive rights. The GOP claims it cares about the 'unborn', but that's such a transparent load of shit. If the GOP really wanted to eradicate abortion they'd be in favor of things like expanded access to contraceptives, family planning services, and comprehensive sex education, because all those things lead to a decrease in the demand for abortions. But the GOP is against all of those things. The only consistent logic is that attacking reproductive rights while being against all of those other ideas is that they all hurt women. The constant maneuvers to restrict abortion access is nothing but an expression to control womens' sexuality. It always has been. An entire platform whose goal is to reduce the very humanity of 50+ percent of the human race is orders of magnitude worse than anything Hillary may have or might do. 3. But wait there's still more! How about North Carolina's immediate attempt to disenfranchise minority voters which conveniently passed as soon as the SCOTUS struck down provisions of the Voting Rights Act? It's almost like the GOP was sitting on that piece of legislation and was just waiting for the opportunity. The GOP's constant attempts at disenfranchising poor and minority citizens under the false concern over 'voting fraud' is just another manifestation of the GOP's philosophy that only affluent heterosexual white men should be accorded rights and respect. Again, orders of magnitude worse than anything Hillary may have or might do. 4. Speaking of homosexuals, all the stupid "marriage is between a man and a woman" amendments that Republicans tried to pass (and yes, I'm well aware of what Hillary said over a decade ago, but it counts as a plus in my book she's done a 180 while the GOP just doubles down on homophobia) as well as the bullshit "religious freedom" bills they've been trying to pass lately which are nothing but way to allow people to discriminate against non-heterosexuals. Just look at all that. These are the things GOP lawmakers on both the federal and state levels have spent their efforts on for the past decade. Actively trying to harm people for no other reason than they're brown, female, or gay. And they continually and consistently lie about everything they do. Yet I'm supposed to get on board with all that just because my party's candidate has some black marks against her? Yet you're saying my reasoning makes no sense?
That's more of a general rant against republicans than a Hillary/Trump breakdown, but I pretty much agree with what you're saying. Fucking thankfully some of the right is finally waking up to the retardation on the social issues, and especially climate change, which is one of the many reasons the republicans are fracturing. The conventional wisdom was 'that's what the base wants' but it's utterly untenable in the long run. I kind of hope the moderate right breaks off and we're left with a hardcore tea party like entity that no one else takes seriously, but we have to deal with. Realistically, we would probably be talking something like 20 years for that sort of dichotomy to take hold though. Ok, regarding your addition - where are you guys getting from Trump's personality that he is going to be hands off and do what the establishment tells him? You have got to be kidding. And have you seen his platform? It is NOT a standard GOP platform. When did the GOP advocate for paid maternity leave and his trade policies? I know you're never going to vote for him, but you might want to take a look at it if you think it's some vanilla Reagnomics establishment platform. I get your gripes with the GOP in general, and if your deal breaker is on the social issues and that's how you vote, well, there is a couple areas he's pretty bad in. That being said, I cannot for the life of me see how Trump is going to be par for the course.
I know it's hard to keep track of all the scandals, but remember why Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign? Something about inappropriately backing Hillary? (Then was quickly moved to Clinton's national campaign.) Who did the DNC replace DWS with? Some one inappropriately backing Hillary against Bernie. Good God, do they think the public is completely oblivious to this corruption or do they just not give a fuck?
I can't believe how quickly this has changed. We're now looking at a dead heat. I wonder how far this momentum is going to go before it hits a wall, or starts swinging back. The dems don't really have an option to reverse. You can't say "Oops that Russian conspiracy theory was kind of not so serious." or "Well, actually Clinton is totally sincere about taking responsibility for her actions." They've also been doing this the whole campaign. I think they're going to double down on the scare tactics and bullshit. Start rambling about racism some more. Then go back to Russia. Holy shit. If they're smart they'll shut up about all of it and become more issue focused.
As painful as being a Trump supporter has been, it's kind of nice to see the train wreck go in the opposite direction for a change.
Philly transit workers went on strike at midnight. If it's not resolved by the 8th, hundreds of thousands of votes may be impacted. "It's going to hurt," Brady said of a potential prolonged strike's effect on voting next Tuesday. He said Hillary Clinton's campaign had expressed concern through Corey Dukes, director of the campaign's Pennsylvania operation." http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20161101_SEPTA__union__still_talking_as_possible_strike_looms.html
I'm only about half way through this, but so far it seems like a great explanation why Hilary is such a bad candidate, and why voting for Donald would still be completely foolish. Out of curiosity, to anyone citing his business dealings as a positive: in terms of all the shady behavior going on in this election, where does being the first modern candidate to not release his tax returns rank to you? Does his providing a pure, uncut bullshit reason why he won't release them make you think he's more or less trustworthy to do any of the things you think he'll do? I'll admit I'm being a bit lazy on this one, but does anyone know of a past business partner of his coming forward to endorse or even just say something positive about their dealings with him? There are plenty of examples of him being shitty to employees and tenants, and running a con-college to prey on stupid people, but has anyone come forward to say he helped them as a struggling entrepreneur? Has anyone who won or was seen on The Apprentice gone on to great success they attribute to working with him? What about other billionaires who have dealt with him? The few I've heard seem to think he's a joke, a shitty businessman, or a crook.
Yea, I just finished that podcast today. Definitely finish it up. Because the way they both explain Trump, they make Hillary look like Mother Theresa. Basically, she is shittiest politician ever, but is still within the scope of what it would mean to still be a generally responsible world leader, even if you disagree with her policies. Trump's perception of reality based purely on the things he says worries Andrew Sullivan beyond that of a normal politician. It was real doom and gloom but I don't think he is wrong.
Last time I listened to Sam Harris his main reasons were he wants more conflict with 'Islam'. As in, in general. He has also come out several times and said "We are at war with Islam." A completely irresponsible and absurd statement. We are not at war with the 1 billion+ people who identify as that faith. The arguments I've seen from him are in favor of Clinton based on foreign policy and frankly I couldn't come up with a worse reason to support her. I'm not going to listen to a 2.5 hour podcast from someone I can't stand - at least on his politics. Trump not releasing his tax returns is shady. I'm pretty sure it's because that, as we partially know and he has more or less admitted, he took advantage of every loophole to it's outer most limits. He's not releasing them because he doesn't want to give the dems ammo. The other reason Trump isn't releasing them is the Hillary camp will comb through them and try to come up with reasons why his business dealings are a conflict of interest. Being wealthy by itself shouldn't count against you, and this would be a gross hypocrisy considering Clinton's record, but I'm sure it would impact some people's voting. So yes, it's bothersome. In my mind it doesn't compare even a tiny fraction to Hillary's endless scandals, but again, it's lesser of evils for a reason. Yes, there has been plenty on his site throughout the course of this election. For other billionaires that support him there was a speech from Peter Thiel posted shortly back. You could find this out in 30 seconds on google. The crap about how everyone he has worked with hates him is put alongside the nonsense that he has been a business failure.
I have to give props to this rep: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillary_b_9312004.html
Huh, I thought today you would be bragging that your guy finally picked up another newspaper's endorsement. I mean I know the National Enquirer is the shining stone in that endorsement crown, but I'm sure you can be proud of this one too. But on the whole I'm glad you are elevating the discourse of the thread by embedding a song. Nitwit would be so proud. In other news, Bill Weld (the VP Libertarian candidate) says he fears for the country if Trump wins as Trump couldn't manage the office of the president because he is psychologically unstable. He then goes on to say basically that people in battleground states should vote for Clinton.
Im still confused as to why trump is considered superior....hes calling hillary corrupt, and yet he wont release his taxes or put his holdings in escrow...hes like me saying tiger woods is deplorable for cheating on his wife dozens of times....i have never been in that situation, thus its unclear i would fare better. Also, no one is saying he is a good leader. never mind hes facist and doesnt understand the constitution....we will end up with pence and that will be a shit show.
But it gets even funnier the more you read about it. Here is a bit about that paper according to the same article. That sounds familiar, but obviously reprehensible and in no way could it represent Trump or his campaign, right? Then I remember the manager of Trump's campaign is Steve Bannon who took a break from running Breitbart, but before he did so he called the site a "platform for the alt-right." And I remembered Breitbart's very own article An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right wherein they said of the alt-right: Then I remembered you posting articles to illegal immigration crime stats juked by a guy who thinks that the Left's position on immigration is meant to purposefully "dilute American culture." So yeah, this is all just real fucking funny. A real fucking hoot.
Just throwing it out there, this is the part where I think people get annoyed with Hillary supporters. I'm likely still voting for her, albeit very begrudgingly. But I'm definitely not taking a stance of moral superiority while I do so. She has enough flaws that it's not really a battle I'd want to get into.
I'm with you. But I do want to say a word about 'False Equivalency.' Somehow, it's become dogma that Trump's offenses and Hillary's are equally bad. I don't get this. Trump hasn't released tax returns - probably because they would show ties to China and Russia - and we're still talking about Hillary's emails. Since I have experience with law enforcement, including the FBI, let me tell you something. When Comey did his 'report' in July - they poured through every email available. They found very little, and not enough to prosecute. Yet, somehow, this is the issue of this campaign. Never mind that the emails were sent to people of clearance and there was no hacking, just the existence of the private server has sent people over the edge. Why? Do people think that Hillary will sell us off to the highest bidder? Let me be clear, I don't like Hillary. I think she's way too enamored with letters after someone's name, whether they've shown they're competent or not - paging Larry Summers to the courtesy phone. I also think for a person that opposed the Vietnam war she has grown way too hawkish for my taste. Frankly, in any other election in recent history, I would have voted McCain (though I think he's a tremendous pussy now - along with Paul Ryan) or Romney over her. W would be a tough call. But to somehow equate Trump's idiocy with her shadiness seems weird to me, because he's way more shady. Ultimately, people that are voting for Trump are voting for change and that's cool, I can get behind that. But ultimately, the man is not suited for the Presidency. I certainly think Hillary is going to do nothing of consequence for me, but I think Trump is way worse. I've said it before, go ahead and look it up, but Americans don't get the President they need, but they certainly get the one they deserve. One happy note, enjoy these last 7 days. 20 or 30 years from now people will ask you about this election. It is a watershed moment. Most of those pass unnoticed. We have the privilege of knowing that this is one of those moments. Seriously, try to enjoy it all, you'll never see this again.
I thought Peter Thiel's defense of Trump was interesting. In essence he says he knows hes kind of a piece of shit, but the political system has become an ouroboros of rich people buying politicians that cater to rich people, both Republicans and Democrats. The cycle continues to gradually deteriorate until you actually do have a socioeconomic crisis on your hands. The 2008 financial crisis should have been the watershed moment, but CDOs are stronger than ever (just organized a bit differently) and nothing has really changed culturally. Clinton, and even Trump to a degree, has commanded an audience of investment banks. Thiel's argument amounts to breaking the system in half to fix it up again. I dont agree with him on some points, but I thought it was an interesting perspective.