[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That depends: Is he a Democrat?

In a serious note, while there is a good case for semantics regarding his wording, I point to an easy thought experiment about how the right-wing in this country would react if positions were reversed.

The irony being Obama was suspected of being foreign influenced while Trump just outright called for it.

You don't have to use a thought experiment. Sarah Palin's email account was hacked during the 2008 campaign. Wikileaks even posted screen shots.
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/VP_conten...h_Palin_hacked

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You don't have to use a thought experiment. Sarah Palin's email account was hacked during the 2008 campaign. Wikileaks even posted screen shots.
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/VP_conten...h_Palin_hacked

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

[besson3c]

Do you think George W. Bush used condoms?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you think George W. Bush used condoms?

Probably, he's Episcopalian.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think the strongest case I can make is on policy (imagine that).

I would say, it's Trump's lack of policy coupled with the willingness to say anything that — interpreted most generously — just comes to his mind at a point in time. And what comes to his mind is not deep or clever or nuanced. He seems to fly by the seat of his pants — and nobody on the GOP side calls him out on it. What are his policy positions? I suspect most of the people who like Trump don't really care, they seem to like Trump because (among other things) they think he is a strong leader. But can somebody who lacks clear positions and convictions even be strong?

Add to that his propensity for a sheer unending number of usually-career-ending comments. His latest was his suggestion that Russia should hack Hillary Clinton's email server to find the missing 30,000 emails. (Plus, he speculated that it could be China or some dude in his underwear.) Of course, you can claim that he was being facetious this time and try to view things from a generous perspective, but this is the umpteenth time (literally too many to count). This behavior is not an outlier, it's the norm for him.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No, he was referring to the deleted emails from HRC's (or is it just HC now?) personal sever that has since been destroyed. Trump was referring to a hack that may have already occurred.

Please, don't embarrass yourself here: are you seriously claiming that his statement is substantially better, because he only suggested Russia to hack and hand over (in case they are already in possession) of the private emails of a US Secretary of State? Emails that for sure will contain politically inconvenient truths (just like with the diplomatic cables, that's just candor, not ill will) and could potentially contain state secrets. He's asking an outside actor to compromise the safety of a high-value US citizen for his own gain.

Where do you draw the line?

[Chongo]

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

1) The quote is being misinterpreted.

2) I'm actually surprised how many people are misinterpreting it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Add to that his propensity for a sheer unending number of usually-career-ending comments. His latest was his suggestion that Russia should hack Hillary Clinton's email server to find the missing 30,000 emails. (Plus, he speculated that it could be China or some dude in his underwear.) Of course, you can claim that he was being facetious this time and try to view things from a generous perspective, but this is the umpteenth time (literally too many to count). This behavior is not an outlier, it's the norm for him.

What I'd claim is the summary given above of his latest comment doesn't resemble what he actually said.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I would say, it's Trump's lack of policy coupled with the willingness to say anything that — interpreted most generously — just comes to his mind at a point in time. And what comes to his mind is not deep or clever or nuanced. He seems to fly by the seat of his pants — and nobody on the GOP side calls him out on it. What are his policy positions? I suspect most of the people who like Trump don't really care, they seem to like Trump because (among other things) they think he is a strong leader. But can somebody who lacks clear positions and convictions even be strong?

If he doesn't have policy positions then why is everybody so scared of them?

His positions, which seem pretty consistent, are...

Crack down on radical Muslims.
Crack down on illegal immigrants.
Trade protectionism.
Other "Republican-y" economic stuff (lower taxes).
Will appoint conservative justices.
Flip Obamacare.

More recently he has adopted the position of "Make NATO our Bitch Again".

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

[IMG]Continues to miss to point.[/IMG]

The proposed 'thought experiment' was not how the right would react to the hacking of one their email servers, but of how they would react to a Hillary (or another democrat) making a statement along the lines of what Trump said. Bringing up Palin's email was almost entirely irrelevant and, as my cartoon illustrated, missing the point.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

If he doesn't have policy positions then why is everybody so scared of them?

His positions, which seem pretty consistent, are...

Crack down on radical Muslims.
Crack down on illegal immigrants.
Trade protectionism.
Other "Republican-y" economic stuff (lower taxes).
Will appoint conservative justices.
Flip Obamacare.

More recently he has adopted the position of "Make NATO our Bitch Again".

It's not as though he has staked out zero positions- what he has said is bad enough. I would also assert that your list of his positions is misrepresentative and reads as an apologists attempt to rationalise supporting him.

1. Originally, it was crack down on all Muslim immigration, then it was allowing some select Muslims in (ie the new Mayor of London), then it was to stop all immigration from certain countries, even non-Muslim refugees. Who knows what his policy will be by the time he takes office?
2. There is a world of difference between 'cracking down on illegal immigration' and building the most politically significant wall since the one around West Berlin.
3. 'Trade Protectionism' is the kindest way of saying that he wants to start a trade war with China, Mexico, and anyone else he is mad at that week.
4. And some un-Republican-y things like raising taxes, maybe raising the federal minimum wage, maybe lowering in, maybe abolishing it and leaving it to the states (he has taken all of these positions during the campaign).
5. This one I would agree is likely only scary if one would oppose a Republican president anyway- I doubt he has any interest in screening and vetting of nominees and would likely leave it to advisors/Pence.
6. As the previous, no different than the other Republicans. However, I would like to think that if even the most extreme conservatives such as Cruz had made it to the presidency, they would have the wisdom to insist that the repeal of Obamacare would not happen before a workable alternative is in place. I don't see that Trump has the level of Wisdom.
7. The NATO thing is bad, and this is coming from an avowed pacifist.
8. You forgot a few gems, like purposefully defaulting on the National Debt, criminal consequences for women that have abortions, being an anti-vaxxer, abolishing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street protection regulations, removing the political independence of the Federal Reserve, bringing back the Gold Standard, supporting 'stop and search', opposing paid family leave, and more.
9. And finally, something that based on previous comments you have made should scare you, making strong encryption illegal.

[Paco500]

Double Post

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

What I'd claim is the summary given above of his latest comment doesn't resemble what he actually said.

I basically agree with you, however, the fact that his VP nom had to release a 'clarification' statement illustrates just how boneheaded, but almost certainly not treasonous, Trump is.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Originally Posted by subego 

1) The quote is being misinterpreted.

2) I'm actually surprised how many people are misinterpreting it.

Whose quote, Trump's or Sullivan's?

In either case, as I said before, Trump's statement has done the job. The press is talking about him and not Hillary.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

If he doesn't have policy positions then why is everybody so scared of them?

People are scared of him, because he happily taps into the resentment of a certain voting block and amplifies their acrimony. They are scared of him, because it's clear that he doesn't have a plan and claims he wants to change virtually any established institution (including NATO and the WTO) — without understanding what they are for and how they actually work.

Originally Posted by subego 

His positions, which seem pretty consistent, are...

Crack down on radical Muslims.
Crack down on illegal immigrants.
Trade protectionism.
Other "Republican-y" economic stuff (lower taxes).
Will appoint conservative justices.
Flip Obamacare.

More recently he has adopted the position of "Make NATO our Bitch Again".

These are not policy positions. A policy position is how you want to crack down on illegal immigrants? Who is going to do it? How is the state going to pay for it? Where is the money coming from? He's got nothing, Trump is nothing but air, promising what resonates the most with the people he wants to please at the time. Many of his “policies” are clearly unconstitutional (e. g. his “policy position” to “ban all Muslims from America”) or impossible (e. g. to “make Mexico pay for the wall”).

I think he's just repeating what resonates with a certain subset of the population, whether it has any chance of being part of a policy or not.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

1) The quote is being misinterpreted.

2) I'm actually surprised how many people are misinterpreting it.

No, I don't think it's being misinterpreted: I understand that at least during part of his answer, Trump was being facetious (although it's sometimes hard to figure out which is which). If you are Jon Stewart, you can make these jokes all day long. If you're a candidate for Presidency, you just can't ever say such things — even in jest. Trump doesn't have to chops to be President.

[subego]

I was discussing the quote from the Clinton camp being misinterpreted.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

I was discussing the quote from the Clinton camp being misinterpreted.

That makes sense. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

That makes sense. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

No worries.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It's not as though he has staked out zero positions- what he has said is bad enough. I would also assert that your list of his positions is misrepresentative and reads as an apologists attempt to rationalise supporting him.

I agree with this accusation more than you may imagine, but let me rearrange a little and see if I've left the realm of accuracy.

If there's apologia occuring, it's for a certain slice of his supporters. Those who lean towards supporting one or more of the policies listed above in the less provocative way I phrased them.

However, I wouldn't call it apologia, because I'm trying to answer the question why rational people would support Trump. I don't agree with most of the positions I list above, but I consider most of them to be legit positions, as in I understand why an intelligent, rational person could hold them.

Allow me to make an argument for why this is so important. Let me trace a through-line connecting John Kerry losing, Brexit winning, and what we have here.

I posit we have a situation now shaping up to be very similar to those two.

1) A perception amongst the supporters of Not-Trump, Kerry, and Remain a vote for anything other than Not-Trump, Kerry, or Remain was (is) insane.

2) An endless stream of insults from the supporters of Not-Trump, Kerry, and Remain directed at the other side.

3) Slack-jawed surprise by the loss of the "obvious correct answer".

The third has yet to pass in our current scenario, but there seems to be a concerted effort to push everything off the same goddamn cliff.

If we, and I say "we" because I would rather Hillary was president, don't want the above scenario to occur, then it behooves us not to fall into the same trap.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I feel the missing ingredients are tolerance and understanding. Their failure to appear surprises me, because they came in the box of gruel I was issued as a young leftist.

[starman]

When was the last time Trump did anything for anyone except himself?

[Paco500]

While I agree that almost every election is 'the most important election in a generation,' I believe there is something fundamentally different about Trump. As for Brexit, most everyone I know over here had a hard time getting excited about it pre-vote, partially because there were valid arguments both sides and almost no one, including almost everyone I know who voted leave, believed it would happen. Bush/Kerry- everyone pretty much lined up behind their party.

This time, you have prominent republicans refusing to endorse (Cruz), not showing up at the convention (too many to list), or even leaving the Republican party (George Will).

This is different. But you're right, he still might win. I wouldn't bet on the outcome either way at this point.

Originally Posted by subego 

I agree with this accusation more than you may imagine, but let me rearrange a little and see if I've left the realm of accuracy.

If there's apologia occuring, it's for a certain slice of his supporters. Those who lean towards supporting one or more of the policies listed above in the less provocative way I phrased them.

However, I wouldn't call it apologia, because I'm trying to answer the question why rational people would support Trump. I don't agree with most of the positions I list above, but I consider most of them to be legit positions, as in I understand why an intelligent, rational person could hold them.

Allow me to make an argument for why this is so important. Let me trace a through-line connecting John Kerry losing, Brexit winning, and what we have here.

I posit we have a situation now shaping up to be very similar to those two.

1) A perception amongst the supporters of Not-Trump, Kerry, and Remain a vote for anything other than Not-Trump, Kerry, or Remain was (is) insane.

2) An endless stream of insults from the supporters of Not-Trump, Kerry, and Remain directed at the other side.

3) Slack-jawed surprise by the loss of the "obvious correct answer".

The third has yet to pass in our current scenario, but there seems to be a concerted effort to push everything off the same goddamn cliff.

If we, and I say "we" because I would rather Hillary was president, don't want the above scenario to occur, then it behooves us not to fall into the same trap.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I feel the missing ingredients are tolerance and understanding. Their failure to appear surprises me, because they came in the box of gruel I was issued as a young leftist.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

While I agree that almost every election is 'the most important election in a generation,' I believe there is something fundamentally different about Trump. As for Brexit, most everyone I know over here had a hard time getting excited about it pre-vote, partially because there were valid arguments both sides and almost no one, including almost everyone I know who voted leave, believed it would happen. Bush/Kerry- everyone pretty much lined up behind their party.

This time, you have prominent republicans refusing to endorse (Cruz), not showing up at the convention (too many to list), or even leaving the Republican party (George Will).

This is different. But you're right, he still might win. I wouldn't bet on the outcome either way at this point.

I'm not so much predicting Trump will get elected as proposing a rationale for why he'd get elected.

Yes, people lined up behind their party with Bush and Kerry, but Kerry should have been able to wipe the ****ing floor.

I firmly believe an enormous contributing factor was Kerry supporters being dismissive (or worse) of what was pushing people towards Bush.

Just as you intuit Trump is somehow a different species of political animal, I note the above phenomenon present to an extent and in a manner I've not seen before.

Not to mention the absolute shitshow that is Hillary does a dismissive attitude little favor.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not so much predicting Trump will get elected as proposing a rationale for why he'd get elected.

That's too close to the mark for some, they're so bound up inside their ideology. I'll say it, though. Unless Hillary can get over her shyness, stage fright, whatever you want to call it, she's going to get pasted in the GE.

Yes, people lined up behind their party with Bush and Kerry, but Kerry should have been able to wipe the ****ing floor.

I firmly believe an enormous contributing factor was Kerry supporters being dismissive (or worse) of what was pushing people towards Bush.

Precisely what happened, and this is also happening in this election.

Not to mention the absolute shitshow that is Hillary does a dismissive attitude little favor.

To the degree she wouldn't hold a press conference in front of media allies, much less answer questions from anyone who likely won't throw softballs. She's a PR disaster at a time when the public needs to hear from her most. Trump may be a troll suffering from foot-in-mouth disease, but at least he's saying something.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Trump may be a troll suffering from foot-in-mouth disease, but at least he's saying something.

Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie, half-truth, exaggeration, misconception, etc. BUT THANK GOD HES TALKING.

Perfect example of politics makes idiots of us all.

[The Final Dakar]

Then Hillary speaks:

"She's so shrill!"
"You can't trust anything she says!"
"She's just saying what's politically expedient!"

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie, half-truth, exaggeration, misconception, etc. BUT THANK GOD HES TALKING.

Perfect example of politics makes idiots of us all.

He's just proving that bullshit is better than silence.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Then Hillary speaks:

"She's so shrill!"
"You can't trust anything she says!"
"She's just saying what's politically expedient!"

She's dug her own grave and let her opponents control her campaign, but what's worse is she can't face the mistakes she's made in the past. Unless she can overcome her fear, she will lose.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The constitution provides a check/balance against the presidency. Impeachment. The main reason it hasn't been used in the past is because of party unity behind their respective candidates. The main reason it HAS been used in the past is on the rare occasion when party unity has been overcome by pure politics ("we have the votes to win so lets win"). This might be the first time in US history that a president wins despite both major parties' antipathy towards him. I still think there's a good chance they simply impeach him as soon as he is elected.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

He's just proving that bullshit is better than silence.

What's the proof?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The constitution provides a check/balance against the presidency. Impeachment. The main reason it hasn't been used in the past is because of party unity behind their respective candidates. The main reason it HAS been used in the past is on the rare occasion when party unity has been overcome by pure politics ("we have the votes to win so lets win"). This might be the first time in US history that a president wins despite both major parties' antipathy towards him. I still think there's a good chance they simply impeach him as soon as he is elected.

That's why I've said I wouldn't have picked an establishment candidate for VP if I were him. His first misstep both sides will unite to remove him.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What's the proof?

Trump's ratings.

[andi*pandi]

Contents of those emails:
30,000 email coupons from Ann Taylor Loft.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Trump's ratings.

Tv ratings?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Contents of those emails:
30,000 email coupons from Ann Taylor Loft.

Thinking the contents of those emails will finally be the smoking gun that buries Hillary after 30 years is like expecting the next Trump gaffe to be the one that finally buries his polling.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Thinking the contents of those emails will finally be the smoking gun that buries Hillary after 30 years is like expecting the next Trump gaffe to be the one that finally buries his polling.

Wait until Hillary has to finally have a press conference. It should be fun.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Tv ratings?

Might as well be. Every time he says "crooked Hillary" on TV while she's dodging press conferences, he climbs in the polls.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Wait until Hillary has to finally have a press conference. It should be fun.

I'm guessing she thinks that will be after her inauguration.

[Chongo]

BTW, where are the "Case Against, Clinton , Johnson, and Stein" threads?

[subego]

I think I've spend more time defending him than not.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

BTW, where are the "Case Against, Clinton , Johnson, and Stein" threads?

Two of them are non contenders and the you and several others have been participating in the Hillary-bashing for years. What would be the point.



Hillary needs to make sure this rumour from Weiner on Bill Maher gets spread around that Trump wants to borrow money from Putin. Followed by a campaign of "A president in Wall Street's pocket is better than one in Russia's".

Then she needs to start endlessly going on about Trumps Tax Returns.

[BadKosh]

To be followed by the FBI chief telling us that Hillary is incompetent and her ILLEGAL SERVER was Hacked and that she has HORRID judgement.
Followed by the relatives of the dead Benghazi heros.
Followed by the women raped by Bubba.
Followed by reports of money laundering by the Clinton Foundation, and WHERE that money came from.
etc.

[BadKosh]

And the 1 TRILLION dollars in NEW TAXES that Hillary wants to enact:
Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes | Americans for Tax Reform

Hillary’s formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase consists of the following:

Income Tax Increase – $350 Billion: Clinton has proposed a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.

Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion: Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform, as described in a Clinton campaign document.

“Fairness” Tax Increase -- $400 Billion: According to her published plan, Clinton has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.

But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above. Her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. The true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.

For instance:

Capital Gains Tax Increase -- Clinton has proposed an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.” Her plan calls for a byzantine capital gains tax regime with six rates. Her campaign has not put a dollar amount on this tax increase.

Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.

“Exit Tax” – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at inversions including an “exit tax” on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. How much? The campaign doesn't say.

This proposal completely fails to address the underlying causes behind inversions: The U.S. 39% corporate tax rate (35% federal rate plus an average state rate of 4%) and our "worldwide" system of taxation, which imposes tax on all American earnings worldwide. The average corporate rate in the developed world is 25%. Thirty-one of thirty-four developed countries have cut their corporate tax rate since 2000. The U.S. has not. Hillary's plan moves in the wrong direction.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

To be followed by the FBI chief telling us that Hillary is incompetent and her ILLEGAL SERVER was Hacked and that she has HORRID judgement.
Followed by the relatives of the dead Benghazi heros.
Followed by the women raped by Bubba.
Followed by reports of money laundering by the Clinton Foundation, and WHERE that money came from.
etc.

This thread is about Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton.

[Waragainstsleep]

Wait so the woman "in Wall Street's" pocket is massively raising taxes on capital gains and stock trading?

Hmmm.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Might as well be. Every time he says "crooked Hillary" on TV while she's dodging press conferences, he climbs in the polls.

This is the closest I'm getting to proof, I assume.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Err... Isn't that what you should be judging them to begin with?

Hillary has policies much closer to my own, but I (somewhat excitedly) voted for Bernie. Was that wrong?

Honest question.

[The Final Dakar]

Eh, that question is a bit too complicated to answer on a phone.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And the 1 TRILLION dollars in NEW TAXES that Hillary wants to enact:
Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes | Americans for Tax Reform

Hillary’s formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase consists of the following:

Income Tax Increase – $350 Billion: Clinton has proposed a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.

Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion: Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform, as described in a Clinton campaign document.

“Fairness” Tax Increase -- $400 Billion: According to her published plan, Clinton has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.

But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above. Her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. The true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.

For instance:

Capital Gains Tax Increase -- Clinton has proposed an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.” Her plan calls for a byzantine capital gains tax regime with six rates. Her campaign has not put a dollar amount on this tax increase.

Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.

“Exit Tax” – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at inversions including an “exit tax” on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. How much? The campaign doesn't say.

This proposal completely fails to address the underlying causes behind inversions: The U.S. 39% corporate tax rate (35% federal rate plus an average state rate of 4%) and our "worldwide" system of taxation, which imposes tax on all American earnings worldwide. The average corporate rate in the developed world is 25%. Thirty-one of thirty-four developed countries have cut their corporate tax rate since 2000. The U.S. has not. Hillary's plan moves in the wrong direction.

The Clintons, via Laura Tyson, floated the idea of a "one time" tax on 401k accounts. "one time', right.
HillaryCare was to be funded by a $1 a pack tax on cigarettes.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is the closest I'm getting to proof, I assume.