Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Case Against Trump: Restocking swamp gators!

The Case Against Trump: Restocking swamp gators! (Page 4)
Thread Tools
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2016, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
By now, how much benefit of the doubt do you want to give Trump? At this point it is patently clear that Trump constantly “misspeaks” (whether he just improvises or deliberately tries to provoke doesn't matter), I think that (among other traits) would make him a disastrous President.
Insisting he explain himself as opposed to expending effort to understand his point is depriving him of the benefit of the doubt, no?

Let it be said the main reason I'm inclined to give any benefit of the doubt is how bad a job has been done so far by people who are supposed to professionally expend effort to understand his statements.

This got ****ed up on the first day of this shitshow. If "Trump thinks all Mexicans are rapists" had instead been reported accurately, I could be giving the press the benefit of the doubt.
( Last edited by subego; Aug 10, 2016 at 12:13 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2016, 11:37 AM
 
If Trump weren't incoherent half the time people wouldn't be misunderstanding him.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2016, 12:11 PM
 
His incoherence, after a fashion, is one of his selling points.

Politicians focus group their positions, edit them for clarity, and then have their machine hammer on it from ten directions at once. This is how they avoid the hole Trump keeps stepping in.

An unintended result of this strategy is politicians are boring AF.

Trump is the opposite. He says what's on his mind, which ostensibly gives him "honesty" points, but I think more importantly he gets interesting points from it. People pay attention to him precisely because of the high potential for him to go "off book".

(Credit needs to be given to JuRY for this analysis)
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2016, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Trump is the opposite. He says what's on his mind, which ostensibly gives him "honesty" points,
Unfortunately, people don't seem to have the capacity for basic fact checking, which would more than make up for any honesty points he gains by pretending to shoot from the cuff.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2016, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So does RCP.
What is their track record in the past elections?
And what is even plotted here? Probability of either candidate winning the presidency?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2016, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Unfortunately, people don't seem to have the capacity for basic fact checking, which would more than make up for any honesty points he gains by pretending to shoot from the cuff.
He gives himself a lot of room to maneuver on this front by consistently engaging in hyperbole.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2016, 03:57 PM
 
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2016, 05:25 PM
 
Why does RCP give me completely different information?

     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2016, 10:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Insisting he explain himself as opposed to expending effort to understand his point is depriving him of the benefit of the doubt, no?
Perhaps I have misunderstood your previous post then. If you meant to say that you demand from Trump to explain himself, then we are on the same page. But that doesn't seem to jive with:
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let it be said the main reason I'm inclined to give any benefit of the doubt is how bad a job has been done so far by people who are supposed to professionally expend effort to understand his statements.
In many cases, the press sensationalizes and all. But in case of Trump the sheer number of Trumpism, most of which are on video or tweets from his account, tells you that even taking the press' penchant for sensationalism into account, I think we no longer need to super carefully parse his latest statement that crossed a line. Just listen to his actual statement or read his tweet and then make up your own mind.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2016, 02:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Why does RCP give me completely different information?

You're using a newer graph that just came out?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2016, 02:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
It's also quite an embellishment.

The only comment made by the SS: https://twitter.com/SecretService/st...42627202048000

"The Secret Service is aware of the comments made earlier this afternoon."

Considering the fact many of them were at the Trump rally, that's not surprising.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2016, 02:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Have a look at Nate Silver's track record, that speaks for itself.
Yeah, it wasn't too impressive during the primaries, he was always selling Sanders short.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2016, 03:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Perhaps I have misunderstood your previous post then. If you meant to say that you demand from Trump to explain himself, then we are on the same page. But that doesn't seem to jive with:

In many cases, the press sensationalizes and all. But in case of Trump the sheer number of Trumpism, most of which are on video or tweets from his account, tells you that even taking the press' penchant for sensationalism into account, I think we no longer need to super carefully parse his latest statement that crossed a line. Just listen to his actual statement or read his tweet and then make up your own mind.
Here is where the paragraph in question fits.

I used to give Trump mor benefit of the doubt.
I no longer do.
Paragraph in question is explaining why I used to give him this benefit.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2016, 04:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here is where the paragraph in question fits.

I used to give Trump mor benefit of the doubt.
I no longer do.
Paragraph in question is explaining why I used to give him this benefit.
OK, that makes sense now, sorry for misreading your earlier posts.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2016, 04:59 AM
 
No worries!
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2016, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You're using a newer graph that just came out?
It was 8 hours after you posted. The polls did not change that quickly. Were you being intentionally misleading?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2016, 01:56 PM
 
Am I understanding Giuliani's defense of Trumps Second Amendment comments correctly?

Sounds like he's saying you can tell Trump wasn't calling for an assassination because if he had been the crowd would have cheered.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
It was 8 hours after you posted. The polls did not change that quickly.
They were posted in the interim.

Were you being intentionally misleading?
Sorry, my crystal ball was busted.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
RobOnTheCape
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 01:07 PM
 
Trying to debate if Trump is a viable candidate is crazy. It's like debating someone who thinks the earth is 5,000 years old, or that evolution is just a "theory". Pro Trump people try and go back and forth and I just won't do it. It's like Bill Nye debating Ken Ham - it just gives Ham and his crazies legitimacy - same with Trump.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 01:23 PM
 
What do you mean by "viable"?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What do you mean by "viable"?
Somebody that has demonstrated the capacity and/or experience to do the job?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 01:46 PM
 
Then neither fits.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Somebody that has demonstrated the capacity and/or experience to do the job?
I feel this metric is too soft for my answer to contain useful information.
     
RobOnTheCape
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 01:59 PM
 
In what way IS he viable? He breathes? I guess so, otherwise, as the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet, I would say he shows zero qualifications as President of the US. Do I like or trust Clinton, not really, but given her years as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, she is infinitely more viable, and qualified, than Trump could ever be(except in his own mind of course).
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 02:02 PM
 
Trump may end up having some good advisors, but Hillary IS A LIAR, has shown decades of sleazy bad judgement, and has health issues, and shitty advisors who are also untrustable.
     
RobOnTheCape
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 02:10 PM
 
How have those advisors worked out for him so far? He listens to his advice only, and thus the train wreck which is Trump. I'm not defending her, but really, I can probably count on my hands the number of politicians who absolutely do not lie - ever. Bad judgement? we can probably look at every single president/Senator and SecState and find bad calls, many of which had disastrous consequences. Like Rick Pitino said when asked about what he can do about the Celtics: "Larry Bird is not walking through that door!" We have to go with who we have, and between the two there is only one logical choice.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
They were posted in the interim.

Sorry, my crystal ball was busted.
The numbers you posted were 15 days old- after the RNC convention bounce but before the DNC convention started.

They were not updated in 'the interim.'
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 02:34 PM
 
Fine.

Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Why does RCP give me completely different information?

Why does RCP give me completely different information?



"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by RobOnTheCape View Post
In what way IS he viable? He breathes? I guess so, otherwise, as the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet, I would say he shows zero qualifications as President of the US. Do I like or trust Clinton, not really, but given her years as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, she is infinitely more viable, and qualified, than Trump could ever be(except in his own mind of course).
What good are qualifications if the intent is to use them for ends one is in fundamental opposition to?

Likewise, is one not more willing to overlook a lack of qualifications the more closely they they are in agreement with the stated end?

That said, I would struggle to show how his temperament over the last two weeks would translate into effective leadership.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What good are qualifications if the intent is to use them for ends one is in fundamental opposition to?

Likewise, is one not more willing to overlook a lack of qualifications the more closely they they are in agreement with the stated end?

That said, I would struggle to show how his temperament over the last two weeks would translate into effective leadership.
What does she plan to do that you oppose so strongly you might risk a lunatic egomaniac in her place?
What do you imagine he might do that you agree with so strongly that you would overlook someone who on paper is literally infinitely more qualified to do the job?

I find it hilarious that people are complaining about Hillary being a liar as if Trump isn't. If he tells the truth as often as you lot think she lies, I'd be amazed.
And she's a career politician, they have to lie. Businessmen choose to.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
What does she plan to do that you oppose so strongly you might risk a lunatic egomaniac in her place?
What do you imagine he might do that you agree with so strongly that you would overlook someone who on paper is literally infinitely more qualified to do the job?

I find it hilarious that people are complaining about Hillary being a liar as if Trump isn't. If he tells the truth as often as you lot think she lies, I'd be amazed.
And she's a career politician, they have to lie. Businessmen choose to.
The lack of gendered pronouns in my first two sentences was intentional. The questions were general.

The qualifications of a candidate I don't support bear little relevance.

Would you be happier if Trump had more extensive qualifications, or would that make you more worried?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 01:12 PM
 
It should be stated the original thesis of this thread was at the time of its writing, the digs on Trump were that he was petty, and bases his policy positions on what will get him votes rather than personal conviction.

I still stand by my claim these apply more or less equally to Hillary. If you cross her, she will burn you with fire, and her convictions are purely a matter of convenience.

What I'd say the difference the last few weeks have demonstrated is Hillary has this thing called self-control which Donald appears to lack.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 03:40 PM
 
I'd be happier if Trump were more qualified, but I think he'd be necessarily different if he were qualified.

Most politicians are guilty of adjusting their stances on issues to pander to voters. I can't say whether thats what has motivated Hillary to change her mind on the issues she has changed her mind on, but I'm much happier to give her some benefit of the doubt that she might have just spent lots of time debating and researching and thinking about those issues and subsequently changed her mind over the years than I would give Trump.
Trump doesn't seem to be crafting policy to get votes so much as rhetoric. Its insubstantial much like he is.

I would say self control is a crucially important trait in a world leader, wouldn't you? Especially one with nuclear weapons and the largest war machine in history at his behest.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 04:41 PM
 
Like the qualifications, the insubstantiality of the policy is less important the closer one hews to the rhetoric behind it.

For example, someone who takes a hardline position on illegal immigration will almost assuredly be better served by Trump. The impracticality of his proposal doesn't alter this.

Likewise, if one believes in a "Republican" fiscal policy, even with Trump's erratic behavior, it's a pretty good bet the belief will be better served by him.

Trump has been far more substantive on Supreme Court nominations. If one prefers Scalia-like Justices, they will also be better served by Trump. How are Clinton's qualifications going to benefit a social conservative or a supporter of the Second Amendment in any way except negatively?


Yes. I do think self-control is a crucially important trait. I wouldn't mention it otherwise. This is opposed to qualifications, especially when discussing someone who agrees with him.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What good are qualifications if the intent is to use them for ends one is in fundamental opposition to?
If Hillary Clinton were elected President, her powers would be checked by Congress which is currently controlled by the Republicans. The US Presidency is not a 4-year dictatorship. Judging by how Republican Congressional leadership has grappled with Trump's candidacy, I'm certain that they'd be much less effective at reigning him in than with what they'd do to Clinton.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That said, I would struggle to show how his temperament over the last two weeks would translate into effective leadership.
Over the last two weeks?!? What about the 69 years before that?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 08:39 PM
 
@subego
I can't follow your argument here: you equate “things that Trump says and evoke feelings” with actual policy positions. Are you sure he doesn't just use the (R) next to his name to evoke Republican traditions? What is Trump's fiscal policy? He is adding a lot of things which are decidedly not Republican (e. g. his skepticism towards free trade).

Ditto for Second Amendment issues, Trump has zero history with the NRA, and what he has said so far seem as insincere as his attempts to portray himself as a Christian in an attempt to pander to Evangelicals. Maybe that's enough to get him the vote of people who think that Obama will take their guns away any day now (but of course, in reality, so far hasn't, although maybe Obama keeps the best thing for last). But on the other hand, I don't think there is any Democratic candidate that these people wouldn't suspect of scheming to abolish the Second Amendment.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Trump has been far more substantive on Supreme Court nominations. If one prefers Scalia-like Justices, they will also be better served by Trump.
In what way has he been more substantive?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 08:45 PM
 
I haven't heard Hillary say much about Judges, probably because whoever she picks will detract from the election by giving the Republican Congress something to complain very loudly about. Obama picked a guy who was practically one of theirs and they kicked up a stink, so far Hillary is getting all the Obama-hate and more. She could resurrect Scalia and they'd still ****ing whinge about it.

I haven't heard her say much about guns either. Lots of words being put in her mouth by other people (Mostly Trump's), but nothing from the horse herself.

I think Gandhi would beat Rambo on supporting 2A if he was wearing a red badge and Rambo had a blue one.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@subego
I can't follow your argument here: you equate “things that Trump says and evoke feelings” with actual policy positions. Are you sure he doesn't just use the (R) next to his name to evoke Republican traditions? What is Trump's fiscal policy? He is adding a lot of things which are decidedly not Republican (e. g. his skepticism towards free trade).

Ditto for Second Amendment issues, Trump has zero history with the NRA, and what he has said so far seem as insincere as his attempts to portray himself as a Christian in an attempt to pander to Evangelicals. Maybe that's enough to get him the vote of people who think that Obama will take their guns away any day now (but of course, in reality, so far hasn't, although maybe Obama keeps the best thing for last). But on the other hand, I don't think there is any Democratic candidate that these people wouldn't suspect of scheming to abolish the Second Amendment.

In what way has he been more substantive?
He's listed his potential choices. Note I meant more substantive than his Mexico policy.

The Second Amendment gets protected by SCOTUS Justices who are Scalia-like.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I haven't heard Hillary say much about Judges, probably because whoever she picks will detract from the election by giving the Republican Congress something to complain very loudly about. Obama picked a guy who was practically one of theirs and they kicked up a stink, so far Hillary is getting all the Obama-hate and more. She could resurrect Scalia and they'd still ****ing whinge about it.

I haven't heard her say much about guns either. Lots of words being put in her mouth by other people (Mostly Trump's), but nothing from the horse herself.

I think Gandhi would beat Rambo on supporting 2A if he was wearing a red badge and Rambo had a blue one.
My guess is she'd rather let the Garland nomination slowly twist the vise on Republican nuts.

As I said, what would protect the Second Amendment are Justices who agree with the Scalia interpretation.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Over the last two weeks?!? What about the 69 years before that?
Honestly, by my estimation he wasn't in a scenario where we could analyze how he truly reacts under pressure until the RNC. Specifically, how he dealt with Cruz.

From that moment on he's demonstrated his glass jaw at least once a day. While there were examples of it during the primary, they weren't to the extent I would argue it could be shown as a defining trait to the extent the last two weeks have shown.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 09:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
He's listed his potential choices. Note I meant more substantive than his Mexico policy.

The Second Amendment gets protected by SCOTUS Justices who are Scalia-like.
I know he has presented his picks. But how does that make him more substantive than Hillary Clinton? No doubt Clinton has her own picks stashed in some drawer, it's just that she knows it'd be better not to reveal her choices beforehand.

Regarding his other positions, I think I know what you meant when you wrote that Trump seems like the better candidate for someone who believes in stricter immigration laws, etc. That Trump's comments and campaign promises (which I would describe as insincere pandering in many instances) are at least the “right ones”, and thus, there is at least political pressure to keep these promises. If that's your point, I can see that logic, but I think it doesn't hold: uncomfortable campaign promises are broken the day after the election, others are shattered by political realities. A campaign promise has the best chance if the elected truly believes in it (I would count Obama's Affordable Care Act as an example). Trump doesn't seem to have strong convictions. He didn't care about the Second Amendment until he felt it was necessary to get the NRA's support. He flip-flopped on a woman's right to choose. (Feel free to continue this list.) In view of that, I think it's sad that there are so many people who don't seem to want to accept that Trump just isn't sincere.

Moreover, and I realize that this might sound inflammatory, but I don't think Trump has the brains for long-term strategic thinking, he seems like a seat-of-the-pants-type of guy when it comes to making decisions.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Honestly, by my estimation he wasn't in a scenario where we could analyze how he truly reacts under pressure until the RNC. Specifically, how he dealt with Cruz.

From that moment on he's demonstrated his glass jaw at least once a day. While there were examples of it during the primary, they weren't to the extent I would argue it could be shown as a defining trait to the extent the last two weeks have shown.
Trump has had more airtime than most candidates, so I don't think the American public has just gotten to know his character. I thought Joe Biden's line, that he's a guy who enjoys saying the line “You're fired!” was quite prescient. For a reality TV show that might be an appealing quality. But for a US President?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 09:55 PM
 
I said "more substantive than his Mexico policy".

The propensity for the specifics of campaign promises being broken is yet another reason why people are willing to overlook the lack of substantive proposals.

Forgive my incredulity, but are we seriously arguing over whether Hillary Clinton is going to be better on the Second Amendment? Of all the policies Trump proposes, Second Amemdment support isn't based on his actions but that of the Supreme Court. He's going to be more responsible for fiscal policy, hence the qualifier I put with my claims he would better serve a republican voter in this regard.


I don't count his appearances on scripted television to be an indicator of something useful. Where are the examples from before he was running of him lacking self-control?
( Last edited by subego; Aug 13, 2016 at 11:20 PM. )
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 11:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I haven't heard Hillary say much about Judges....
She said her litmus test is pro abortion and anti Citizens United.
45/47
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2016, 12:24 AM
 
I still hope she puts Obama on the Supreme Court. The butthurt would be strong with that one.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2016, 01:57 AM
 


Beautiful Trump... Defender of the Mexicans, jews, women, & medically challenged. It's like he's a super hero, drawing power from all the negative energy and hate directed at him - then using it for good. What a humanitarian.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2016, 02:33 AM
 
I also stand behind my claim Trump is neither racist or homophobe.

Fantastically rich, racist homophobes generally choose to live in places other than New York City.
     
RobOnTheCape
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2016, 08:35 AM
 
I regularly work in the homes of multi millionaires and billionaires - It matters no one bit where they live - they live in lifestyles and environments cut off from those outside their homes. They go from multi million dollar condo's to restaurants at $500 a serving, to beaches which have an entry fee of $350k, and clubs where the people they may have to rub shoulders with have the same net worth as they do. This isn't a criticism, but just saying the fantastically rich abound in NYC because that is one of the places where the money and opportunity is, regardless of who else lives there.

I agree about Trump - I think he sees someone according to how successful they are rather than skin color or gender identity. Still an A hole.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2016, 02:13 PM
 
Totally an asshole.

The distinction I'm trying to make is he doesn't just live in New York, it's that he's a New Yorker, if that makes sense.

This is the big secret they try to hush up at FOX News... almost all the people there are New Yorkers too. The people who work there are (relatively speaking) way the hell more liberal than they let on.


As OreoCookie mentioned, we've got 70+ years of data on the guy. What are the probabilities Donald Trump could keep being a racist under wraps this whole time?

Paco provided the master list of racism they've dug up on him. In the anecdote section they come up with, like, two examples. If Donald was actually racist they'd have to pick the juiciest 10 anecdotes from a pool of several hundred.

I will also stand firm his Mexico policy was wildly distorted from day one. His statements were accurate. Saying Mexico doesn't send its "best" people is an obnoxiously classist way to put it, but we don't exactly consider the rolls of American unskilled laborers "our best people" either.

As far as Mexican criminals go, America is Candy Land. Not to dismiss our own issues with homicidal cops, but compared to Mexico?

That said, I land about as far away from his conclusions as possible. As I've said before, I doubt he even agrees with his conclusions. Insanely wealthy restaurateur and (former) casino magnate has a problem with cheap, exploitable labor... riiiiiight.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2016, 02:48 PM
 
His insecurity, ego and utter lack of taste are more of a worry. I think he was even quoted a few years back as saying that he would run as a Republican because of how easy it is to manipulate their base.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2016, 03:50 PM
 
I see the lack of taste as minor, but would otherwise agree.

If his statement about manipulating the base is true, it demonstrates a lack of political acumen. The base doesn't need to be manipulated. That's what makes them your base.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:03 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,