I notice that Limeygent declines to (cannot?) identify a single positive character trait that would suggest any reasonably balanced person would vote for Trump, saying that 'voters on both sides will have to hold their noses when they vote.' If the candidates are that bad and you have the slightest self-respect you could vote for one of the independents or....DONT VOTE AT ALL.
ps if you are going to quote me at least learn to spell 'desperate' properly:-) Oh and by the way the correct phrase is 'couldn't care less etc...'
If criticising my use of the language, and an odd spelling mistake makes you feel superior, go for it. If you think "rednecks" don't care about who's the next Supreme Court Justice, you aren't out with the general American public every day, as I am, and you have no understanding of American politics at all.
For what it's worth, I think you're both right. I do agree with Limey that a lot more people than you would think care about the Supreme Court nominees. The profile has really been raised by a combination of Scalia dying (may he rest in hell) and the fact that Republicans in Congress have outright declared they will not fulfill their constitutional duty in reviewing Obama's nominee, there are a lot more eyes on it now. Also, Scalia was an arch-conservative, a real cunt, I genuine bigot, and the next Supreme Court Justice will largely sway how the court votes (right now it's 4-4 "liberals" and conservatives, and usually one swing vote in Kennedy).
So, all of that said, is a SCJ alone enough to get people to the polls to vote for Trump? I'm not convinced. Trump can be viewed as quite liberal (bear with me here) on things like NAFTA/TPP, LGTBQ+ rights, the fact that he was once pro choice, and his opposition to the Iraq war. His stances have bounced all over the place since he started running for president, but people on the right tend to not forgive "flip floppers." Lastly, and I think most importantly, he's not a practicing Christian. And that is still a big deal to what was once considered the Republican base, particularly in the midwest and the south. He's on his third wife, as mentioned above he was once pro-choice and pro-LGTBQ+ rights, and that really rankles with Christian conservatives.
I really think if Gary Johnson had some sort of media coverage for him and the Libertarian Party this year of all years he could poll up to 10% with the amount of distaste felt towards Clinton and especially Trump.
if you are going to quote me at least learn to spell 'desperate' properly:-) Oh and by the way the correct phrase is 'couldn't care less etc...'
To be fair, I believe the corruption 'could care less' is the variation of 'couldn't care less' that is commonly used in the US. I agree it's an odd one and doesn't really make sense, but I think Limey's been over there a few years. I wouldn't blame him for referring to sidewalks, diapers and fanny-packs or for spelling things like criticise as 'criticize' either. I'd even forgive him spelling colour without a 'u', but to be honest, that's pushing it a bit!
I think what the Americans are getting at with that phrase is "I could care less, just not much less as I care very little already."
I really think Gary Johnson had some sort of media coverage for him and the Libertarian Party this year of all years he could poll up to 10% with the amount of distaste felt towards Clinton and especially Trump.
I am not talking about the former Yeovil manager by the way.
Ok Limeygent, it's clear you have nothing positive to say on behalf of Trump. It's not hard to understand why. Anyway I'll now look forward to the debates to see if Trump answers a single question rather than drift off topic and rely on his usual technique of 'social support.' In other words 'everyone tells me', 'we all can see', 'people come up to me and they say, Donald...' It's been an effective technique so far.
And by the way I don't feel superior to you or anyone else. I really was trying to understand what you might see in Trump but never mind:-) (I really must learn how to do the emojis on here!):-)
I really think Gary Johnson had some sort of media coverage for him and the Libertarian Party this year of all years he could poll up to 10% with the amount of distaste felt towards Clinton and especially Trump.
I am not talking about the former Yeovil manager by the way.
We'll be facing him tomorrow night!
Despite being the polar opposite to Johnson (candidate, not manager) on many things, he does come across very well. He has a principled and well thought out perspective, and he sticks to it. I'm not trying to say that everyone should be ideologues, but our current political climate is such a cluster fuck that it's nice when someone comes along and says "this is how I believe Government should be run, and I believe the purpose of Government is XYZ." Again, being a Marxist, he and I drastically disagree on the role of Government, but at least he has a view on the societal role of Government.
I really think Gary Johnson had some sort of media coverage for him and the Libertarian Party this year of all years he could poll up to 10% with the amount of distaste felt towards Clinton and especially Trump.
A high profile 3rd party candidate that could convince the electorate he/she was on the side of the average American rather than the super rich and wasn't an open bigot could pick up a lot more than 10% of the vote. If they also had a strong jaw, good hair and a compelling back story......
I really think Gary Johnson had some sort of media coverage for him and the Libertarian Party this year of all years he could poll up to 10% with the amount of distaste felt towards Clinton and especially Trump.
A high profile 3rd party candidate that could convince the electorate he/she was on the side of the average American rather than the super rich and wasn't an open bigot could pick up a lot more than 10% of the vote. If they also had a strong jaw, good hair and a compelling back story......
I really think Gary Johnson had some sort of media coverage for him and the Libertarian Party this year of all years he could poll up to 10% with the amount of distaste felt towards Clinton and especially Trump.
A high profile 3rd party candidate that could convince the electorate he/she was on the side of the average American rather than the super rich and wasn't an open bigot could pick up a lot more than 10% of the vote. If they also had a strong jaw, good hair and a compelling back story......
But would likely "give" the election to Hillary.
Clinton is the establishment stooge representing Wall Street and the 0.1%er's. She would have been just as vulnerable as Trump if the right candidate could have been found.
Trump is doing more to beat himself at the moment than Hillary or any third party candidate could possibly do. I'm not sure that we've seen the last of the email scandal yet, though, and the debates will be interesting and likely decisive.
Trump is doing more to beat himself at the moment than Hillary or any third party candidate could possibly do. I'm not sure that we've seen the last of the email scandal yet, though, and the debates will be interesting and likely decisive.
We have seen the last of the email scandal. The FBI has decided not to prosecute. Just like Benghazi, the story doesn't have legs beyond those who would not vote for Clinton anyway, yourself included. At this point it's just background noise to the larger issues.
I don't think Trump will make it to the debates with a chance. The narrative on him being able to say anything has turned, and he does not have the personal capability to turn it back. Others could at least turn the narrative, but he can't.
Even if the Republicans had a more skilled and qualified candidate, Obama has a ~52% approval rating and unemployment is at "4.9%." It was as high as 10% in 2009. Those make for tough numbers when trying to throw a political party out of executive office.
Other than "not accused of a potential breach of email policy", is there anything *positive* about Trump?
Because, apart from that, I can't think of a single reason to vote for the ageing, ridiculous, racist, dim-witted, thin-skinned, dangerous, homophobic misogynist.
Chizz that's not a fair appraisal of Trump's talents. You've missed out scamming people with his fraudulent Trump "University"and multiple bankruptcies and when it comes to lying he is beyond compare.
Please, find me something from a major publication. If this is going to be an issue, a non-conservative leaning media outlet will pick it up. Otherwise, I go back to my previous statement, this is just a narrative for those who won't vote for Hillary anyway.
Other than "not accused of a potential breach of email policy", is there anything *positive* about Trump?
Because, apart from that, I can't think of a single reason to vote for the ageing, ridiculous, racist, dim-witted, thin-skinned, dangerous, homophobic misogynist.
Sounds like another one of the nights when Donald has been off the teleprompter and gone off piste. Republicans must be furious at the damage he is doing to the party. Clinton is hardly having to campaign at the moment, just point out what a nut job Trump is.
Sounds like another one of the nights when Donald has been off the teleprompter and gone off piste. Republicans must be furious at the damage he is doing to the party. Clinton is hardly having to campaign at the moment, just point out what a nut job Trump is.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public
One for the anoraks. Clinton's lead has increased pretty drastically in the last week or so. Some of that is the "post convention bounce," and we're still three months away from the election, but these are roughly the numbers I expect we'll see come November. Trump has gone noticeably quiet in the last couple days, but I think his tirades about encouraging Russian hacking and attacking the family of a dead Service Member has turned the narrative on him.
Also worth noting is that Texas is polling increasingly closely, at least by comparison. I know some who forecast it could go blue in 2020. I think that's a little too soon (and also, it remains to be seen if the current breakdown of the two party system will still be alive in 2020), but it is a state moving left. Same can be said for Georgia. In both cases it's largely down to the growth of the cities.
Not due to an influx of Mexicans who generally vote democrat?
Okay, so I oversimplified a bit. Yes, some due to influx of Mexicans, though they don't necessarily vote Democrat. The younger generation leans more toward democrat, but they're seen as a demographic "up for grabs." There is also a general migration to Texas, a lot of tech start-ups there (name in Austin, a very liberal city) due to the favorable tax rates.
I don't shock easily these days but when I read these quotes earlier today my mouth fell open. He's sailing very close to the winds of legality, and way beyond the boundaries of moral decency. The mans an absolute loon.
One for the anoraks. Clinton's lead has increased pretty drastically in the last week or so. Some of that is the "post convention bounce," and we're still three months away from the election, but these are roughly the numbers I expect we'll see come November. Trump has gone noticeably quiet in the last couple days, but I think his tirades about encouraging Russian hacking and attacking the family of a dead Service Member has turned the narrative on him.
Also worth noting is that Texas is polling increasingly closely, at least by comparison. I know some who forecast it could go blue in 2020. I think that's a little too soon (and also, it remains to be seen if the current breakdown of the two party system will still be alive in 2020), but it is a state moving left. Same can be said for Georgia. In both cases it's largely down to the growth of the cities.
Not due to an influx of Mexicans who generally vote democrat?
Okay, so I oversimplified a bit. Yes, some due to influx of Mexicans, though they don't necessarily vote Democrat. The younger generation leans more toward democrat, but they're seen as a demographic "up for grabs." There is also a general migration to Texas, a lot of tech start-ups there (name in Austin, a very liberal city) due to the favorable tax rates.
I don't shock easily these days but when I read these quotes earlier today my mouth fell open. He's sailing very close to the winds of legality, and way beyond the boundaries of moral decency. The mans an absolute loon.
What's so wrong with my assessment of the demographic shifts taking place in Texas?!?!?!?!?!?!
So these comments are pretty disgusting. But honestly, they're not too far from the norm. We have a serious problem with rhetoric around guns and the Second Amendment in this country. We also, obviously, have a serious problem with gun violence and gun death. Those two are not unrelated. See Gabby Giffords who was shot in the head (and miraculously survived) at a time when political tensions and extreme rhetoric was, what felt like then, an all-time high. It was at a time when people like Sarah Palin were casually telling Americans to "Lock and load."
Republicans have become so intent on denying any sort of Federal (because it happens at state level) regulations of fire arms and the Second Amendment, even though every amendment has caveats, like the First Amendment where "you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre" as it could lead to harm. But it's such a talking point for Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, it's become a sign of freedom somehow. When we had a serious and difficult discussion about Healthcare in 2010 and Obama went around trying to pitch his moderate plans, Republicans and right wingers showed up in droves with their guns because they "feared for their freedom," stoked on by the likes of Fox News and Sarah Palin. et al.
Honestly? This is classic Trump inasmuch as he makes no sense, says what he wants, and in this case, I think he got his talking points confused. "Hillary bad, guns good. What happens when Hillary+Guns? Fuck it, let's say it out loud and see what happens."
This does not make it okay. As stated before, I hate guns. I've never fired one because I don't want to, in any way, shape, or form give money to arms manufacturers. If I had it my way all guns would be illegal in the States. And the rhetoric around guns is absolutely insane. Without a shadow of a doubt. But I would be remiss if I didn't say that I think Trump said something here that was intended to be more stupid than it was to incite violence. Doesn't make it okay.
::Sigh::
I fully understand if things make even less sense after this explanation.
"This does not make it okay. As stated before, I hate guns. I've never fired one because I don't want to, in any way, shape, or form give money to arms manufacturers. If I had it my way all guns would be illegal in the States. And the rhetoric around guns is absolutely insane. Without a shadow of a doubt. But I would be remiss if I didn't say that I think Trump said something here that was intended to be more stupid than it was to incite violence. Doesn't make it okay."
I agree that Trump didn't intend to advocate murdering Clinton but as Presidential nominee it is his responsibility to use words that cannot be misunderstood. Sadly this lunatic is incapable of understanding that. After all anyone who can say he has made sacrifices and when asked what they are, says he has made lots of money, is struggling with the English language.
"This does not make it okay. As stated before, I hate guns. I've never fired one because I don't want to, in any way, shape, or form give money to arms manufacturers. If I had it my way all guns would be illegal in the States. And the rhetoric around guns is absolutely insane. Without a shadow of a doubt. But I would be remiss if I didn't say that I think Trump said something here that was intended to be more stupid than it was to incite violence. Doesn't make it okay."
I agree that Trump didn't intend to advocate murdering Clinton but as Presidential nominee it is his responsibility to use words that cannot be misunderstood. Sadly this lunatic is incapable of understanding that. After all anyone who can say he has made sacrifices and when asked what they are, says he has made lots of money, is struggling with the English language.
I wish that were true, but you have to see these things in context. This is a man who suggests that an appropriate response to him losing would be civil insurrection. Who thinks Putin is a role model. Who thinks that water boarding is too soft a form of torture.
"This does not make it okay. As stated before, I hate guns. I've never fired one because I don't want to, in any way, shape, or form give money to arms manufacturers. If I had it my way all guns would be illegal in the States. And the rhetoric around guns is absolutely insane. Without a shadow of a doubt. But I would be remiss if I didn't say that I think Trump said something here that was intended to be more stupid than it was to incite violence. Doesn't make it okay."
I agree that Trump didn't intend to advocate murdering Clinton but as Presidential nominee it is his responsibility to use words that cannot be misunderstood. Sadly this lunatic is incapable of understanding that. After all anyone who can say he has made sacrifices and when asked what they are, says he has made lots of money, is struggling with the English language.
You're absolutely right, and yet there's this voice in my head that is screaming (internally) "THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS." Of course, it should be. This didn't start with Trump though, Trump is the result of years and years of ratcheting up the rhetoric and creating an "us versus them" mentality within our own country. This is not exclusive to Republicans by any means, but they're the ones who always like to bring guns into the equation.
Here's the clip. He looks like a man reading the liner notes, "Hillary wants to expand regulations...I want to lower them, could be as much as 70, 75%." I fucking love that he's up there, three months from a general election for President, just spitballing. Also, when he says the thing about the second amendment people, look at the old white man with white hair and a beard, even he seems to say "ohhhh sheeeeeeeeeet"
Just a quick note, in the last couple of posts I've thrown the blanket term "Republicans" around a lot. I don't like it when people say "lefties do ABC" or "Conservatives XYZ" and I try to refrain from doing it. So when I say "Republicans" now, it means a far-right wing of the party that is increasingly becoming the only active wing in the party. The libertarian strand has all but gone.
When I was younger I had friends who were Republicans whom I constantly, lovingly disagreed with but respected immensely. The other day on Facebook I saw one of my staunch conservative friends from that time post that he's registered as a Democrat. He was of that libertarian, free market loving strand, but there's no place for him in the Republican party anymore because frankly he doesn't care that much about guns and thinks gay people are just fine.
Every now and then it hits me just how sad it is to see how low we've sunk in political discourse. We can talk all we want about how idiotic people are for backing Trump, but I can tell you in its good moments this can be a really fantastic country. I am not an American Exceptionalist, but I do know we're better than all of this.
Do you really think Trump wanted to be president when he started out in the primaries? I have a feeling he wanted to just raise his profile and make a few points (whether valid or not), it then just snowballed, the more he said things to be controversial, the more popular he got. I don't think for 1 min he seriously thought he would be the nominee.
Its now at a point when he cant escape, so he is still saying even more wild things to make sure he doesn't get elected.
Do you really think Trump wanted to be president when he started out in the primaries? I have a feeling he wanted to just raise his profile and make a few points (whether valid or not), it then just snowballed, the more he said things to be controversial, the more popular he got. I don't think for 1 min he seriously thought he would be the nominee.
Its now at a point when he cant escape, so he is still saying even more wild things to make sure he doesn't get elected.
I think you credit him with far too much intelligence.
Comments
So, all of that said, is a SCJ alone enough to get people to the polls to vote for Trump? I'm not convinced. Trump can be viewed as quite liberal (bear with me here) on things like NAFTA/TPP, LGTBQ+ rights, the fact that he was once pro choice, and his opposition to the Iraq war. His stances have bounced all over the place since he started running for president, but people on the right tend to not forgive "flip floppers." Lastly, and I think most importantly, he's not a practicing Christian. And that is still a big deal to what was once considered the Republican base, particularly in the midwest and the south. He's on his third wife, as mentioned above he was once pro-choice and pro-LGTBQ+ rights, and that really rankles with Christian conservatives.
And by the way I don't feel superior to you or anyone else. I really was trying to understand what you might see in Trump but never mind:-) (I really must learn how to do the emojis on here!):-)
Despite being the polar opposite to Johnson (candidate, not manager) on many things, he does come across very well. He has a principled and well thought out perspective, and he sticks to it. I'm not trying to say that everyone should be ideologues, but our current political climate is such a cluster fuck that it's nice when someone comes along and says "this is how I believe Government should be run, and I believe the purpose of Government is XYZ." Again, being a Marxist, he and I drastically disagree on the role of Government, but at least he has a view on the societal role of Government.
I don't think Trump will make it to the debates with a chance. The narrative on him being able to say anything has turned, and he does not have the personal capability to turn it back. Others could at least turn the narrative, but he can't.
Even if the Republicans had a more skilled and qualified candidate, Obama has a ~52% approval rating and unemployment is at "4.9%." It was as high as 10% in 2009. Those make for tough numbers when trying to throw a political party out of executive office.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/07/clinton_email_scandal_its_far_from_over_131127.html
Because, apart from that, I can't think of a single reason to vote for the ageing, ridiculous, racist, dim-witted, thin-skinned, dangerous, homophobic misogynist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics
Please, find me something from a major publication. If this is going to be an issue, a non-conservative leaning media outlet will pick it up. Otherwise, I go back to my previous statement, this is just a narrative for those who won't vote for Hillary anyway.
Weirdly, Trump actually looks slightly less ridiculous as a Ferengi than he does normally!
The guy is a grade-A clown. Clearly.
So these comments are pretty disgusting. But honestly, they're not too far from the norm. We have a serious problem with rhetoric around guns and the Second Amendment in this country. We also, obviously, have a serious problem with gun violence and gun death. Those two are not unrelated. See Gabby Giffords who was shot in the head (and miraculously survived) at a time when political tensions and extreme rhetoric was, what felt like then, an all-time high. It was at a time when people like Sarah Palin were casually telling Americans to "Lock and load."
Republicans have become so intent on denying any sort of Federal (because it happens at state level) regulations of fire arms and the Second Amendment, even though every amendment has caveats, like the First Amendment where "you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre" as it could lead to harm. But it's such a talking point for Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, it's become a sign of freedom somehow. When we had a serious and difficult discussion about Healthcare in 2010 and Obama went around trying to pitch his moderate plans, Republicans and right wingers showed up in droves with their guns because they "feared for their freedom," stoked on by the likes of Fox News and Sarah Palin. et al.
Honestly? This is classic Trump inasmuch as he makes no sense, says what he wants, and in this case, I think he got his talking points confused. "Hillary bad, guns good. What happens when Hillary+Guns? Fuck it, let's say it out loud and see what happens."
This does not make it okay. As stated before, I hate guns. I've never fired one because I don't want to, in any way, shape, or form give money to arms manufacturers. If I had it my way all guns would be illegal in the States. And the rhetoric around guns is absolutely insane. Without a shadow of a doubt. But I would be remiss if I didn't say that I think Trump said something here that was intended to be more stupid than it was to incite violence. Doesn't make it okay.
::Sigh::
I fully understand if things make even less sense after this explanation.
I agree that Trump didn't intend to advocate murdering Clinton but as Presidential nominee it is his responsibility to use words that cannot be misunderstood. Sadly this lunatic is incapable of understanding that. After all anyone who can say he has made sacrifices and when asked what they are, says he has made lots of money, is struggling with the English language.
Here's the clip. He looks like a man reading the liner notes, "Hillary wants to expand regulations...I want to lower them, could be as much as 70, 75%." I fucking love that he's up there, three months from a general election for President, just spitballing. Also, when he says the thing about the second amendment people, look at the old white man with white hair and a beard, even he seems to say "ohhhh sheeeeeeeeeet"
When I was younger I had friends who were Republicans whom I constantly, lovingly disagreed with but respected immensely. The other day on Facebook I saw one of my staunch conservative friends from that time post that he's registered as a Democrat. He was of that libertarian, free market loving strand, but there's no place for him in the Republican party anymore because frankly he doesn't care that much about guns and thinks gay people are just fine.
Every now and then it hits me just how sad it is to see how low we've sunk in political discourse. We can talk all we want about how idiotic people are for backing Trump, but I can tell you in its good moments this can be a really fantastic country. I am not an American Exceptionalist, but I do know we're better than all of this.
Maybe it's just the insomnia talking.
Its now at a point when he cant escape, so he is still saying even more wild things to make sure he doesn't get elected.