Trump to win?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Uncharacteristically cute today, jk. Have a good one.

i don't think of it as being cute. i was a math major. logic matters.


ps speaking of logic mattering, i read a piece yesterday which said kurt godel maintained that there was a logical loophole in the constitution which would allow for a dictatorship to emerge without a coup. he never shared his reasoning. at his citizenship exam, unfortunately, the examiner asked something which got him started on this topic. einstein, who had come along as a character reference, managed to shut him up so that his citizenship hearing could proceed normally. godel was perhaps 2nd only to einstein in his genius, and deeper than einstein in logic and mathematical foundations.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

i don't think of it as being cute. i was a math major. logic matters...

In politics it matters not one whit.

And it will become increasingly clear in the days ahead that Comey and Lynch made their decision entirely on politics. Please apply your knowledge of logic to parsing the facts as Comey outlined, the law he cited, his decision not to indict, and the paucity of logic should be exceedingly clear.

Consider the idea that Trump represents some new politics, unprecedented and ooooooo so scary that only Hillary can save us now. Bovine scatology. If you like Obama, you'll love Trump. And you'll love Hillary.

Oh, what fun we have with the nonsense that flows out of the mouth of Donald J. Trump. The man is suffocatingly banal, racist, dishonest, inarticulate, uninformed, uneducated, narcissistic, a bully, just plain stupid, and an asshole (or in the immortal words of my people — a schmuck!) I would guess that as the boss of his own enterprises for many years, with the power and the habit of firing people, he eventually became deeply accustomed to not having his thoughts seriously questioned or challenged, to the extent that he really believes the crap that comes out of his mouth and doesn’t really understand what others actually think of him.
But if we look at what comes out of the mouth of The Barack is there any reason to castigate The Donald for his supposedly outrageous or weird way of expressing himself? Here’s a sample:
— On numerous occasions, in reply to a question about why his administration has not prosecuted the Bush-Cheney gang for mass murder, torture and other war crimes, former law professor Obama has stated: “I prefer to look forward rather than backwards.” Picture a defendant before a judge asking to be found innocent of any crime on such grounds. On other occasions, Obama, without apparent embarrassment, has stated that “nobody is above the law”. (A public figure can be labeled stupid not just for saying or doing stupid things, but for not even realizing that the public will SEE his words or actions as stupid.)
— Asked whether he would apologize for Washington’s role in Chile’s 1973 military coup which overthrew the democratically elected government and replaced it with a dictatorship, Obama replied: “I’m interested in going forward, not looking backward. I think that the United States has been an enormous force for good in the world.” (June 23, 2009)
— Question from CNN, 2008: “Do you think the US should apologize for any mistakes that it has made in the past?” Obama’s reply: “I don’t think the US should ever apologize for anything.”
— Obama’s speech to the UN General Assembly on September 24, 2014 where he classified Russia to be one of the three great threats to the world along with the Islamic State and the ebola virus.
— Obama’s declaration that ISIS “has nothing to do with Islam”. This is standard political correctness which ignores the indisputable role played by Islam in inspiring Orlando and Long Beach and Paris and Ankara and many other massacres; it is the religion that teaches the beauty and godliness of jihad and the heavenly rewards of suicide bombings.
— After Turkey’ intentional shoot-down of a Russian warplane along the Turkish-Syrian border, instead of rebuking Turkey, a NATO member, for its absolutely reckless behavior –- or expressing sympathy to the Russians -– Obama asserted that “Turkey, like every country, has a right to defend its territory and its airspace.”(November 24, 2015) Turkey later apologized to Russia, but Obama didn’t.
— In September 2013 Obama stood before the United Nations and declared: “I believe America is exceptional.”
— On March 9, 2015 Obama declared Venezuela “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States”.
— Obama spoke of “the principle that no country has the right to send in troops to another country unprovoked” (March 3, 2014) (Do our leaders have no memory or do they think we’ve all lost ours?)
— “I’m good at killing.” (Just imagine Trump saying this.) Obama has claimed the power to murder anyone anywhere by drone. Nixon had an enemies list, but this drone king has a personal kill list. Obama’s use of drones against jihadist leaders, and anyone else who happens to be too close, has essentially rescinded the leading principle that was established in the Magna Carta 800 years ago — the presumption of innocence.
— Imagine also The Donald joking — as Obama did — about using a drone on his daughters’ boyfriends: “They’ll never know what hit them.”
— Obama, State of the Union speech, 2012: “This generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world.”
— On May 28, 2012 the president declared that Vietnam was “one of the most extraordinary stories of bravery and integrity in the annals of [US] military history”.
— After taking over the White House in 2009, Obama called Afghanistan the “good war”
— Obama, explaining the US/NATO devastation of Libya in 2011, turning it from Africa’s highest standard of living into a desperate failed state, based on made-up reports about Ghaddafi carrying out atrocities: “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.” (March 28, 2011)
— Said Obama: A US refusal to intervene in Libya would be “a betrayal of who we are.” (How true.)
— In March 2011, as the US/NATO bombardment of the people of Libya continued, day after day, the White House insisted that it was “a limited humanitarian intervention, not war.”
— “All the forces that we’re seeing at work in Egypt are forces that naturally should be aligned with us, should be aligned with Israel — if we make good decisions now and we understand sort of the sweep of history.”(March 4, 2011) Egypt quickly became a brutal dictatorship.
— State of the Union address, 2011: “And we’ve sent a message … to all parts of the globe: we will not relent, we will not waver, and we will defeat you.”
— Obama: “I’m not somebody who discounts the sincerity and worthiness of President Bush’s concerns about democracy and human rights.” (Washington Post, January 19, 2009)
— Obama: “President Bush was right that Iran’s ballistic missile program poses a significant threat [to Europe and the US].” (September 30, 2009)
“I believe that Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis.” (Obama, Washington Post, August 17, 2008)
— June 22, 2009: Obama says America is “fully prepared” for any action by North Korea. (Thank god; after the nuclear attacks by China and Russia it was great to not have to worry about North Korea. But there was still Iran.)
— Obama, speaking about Russia, July 7: “In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chess board are over.”
— During a visit to Baghdad April 7, 2009, Obama praised the US military for their “extraordinary achievement” in Iraq.
— Obama: “To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet.” (December 1, 2008)
— Speaking to a joint session of Congress: “I can stand here and say without exception or equivocation that the United States does not torture.” (Washington Post, February 24, 2009)
— “There is no spying on Americans. We don’t have a domestic spying program.” (Obama on The Tonight Show, August 7, 2013)
— Just 18 days before the disastrous Gulf oil spill in 2010 Obama said: “It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.” (Washington Post, May 27, 2010)
— Obama’s pep talk December 2010 to US troops in Afghanistan in which he lauded them as “the finest fighting force that the world has ever known”. (George W. Bush: the US military is “the greatest force for freedom in the history of the world” and “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known.”) Try and top those lines, Donald.
— As a presidential candidate in 2008 Obama lauded whistleblowers as “part of a healthy democracy [who] must be protected from reprisal.” In 2012, the campaign to re-elect President Barack Obama boasted on its website that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined.
— Obama’s claim that the U.S. has been “For nearly seven decades the anchor of global security”. (September 10, 2013)
— “Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians it’s an act of terror.” (April 16, 2013); “I was elected to end wars, not start them. I’ve spent the last 4 1/2 years doing everything I can to reduce our reliance on military power as a means of meeting our international obligations and protecting the American people.” (September 6, 2013); “The bottom line is, nothing of significance, nothing of benefit results from destructive acts.” (November 25, 2014)
Thus spoke the man who carried out military attacks against Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Syria.
— Obama (CBS News, February 13, 2013): “I urge this Congress to come up with a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change.”
Sam Smith asked: “Does he also want, for example, a bipartisan market-based solution to cancer?
— In his book “The Audacity of Hope” Obama wrote: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
And if you like Barack Obama you’ll love Hillary Clinton.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/...ll-love-trump/

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

...I've seen your work, SF. You are the last person who should be complaining about name calling. You dish it out in healthy portions, so please stop embarrasing yourself and the rest of us.....
...
you ignore that as you do all facts that contradict the bill of goods you are working tirelessly to convince yourself has any semblance of reality. As far convincing anyone else, clearly your efforts are pointless.

You are standing out on the ledge and wondering why no one else will join you. Jump already.

and a HUGE + 1

it'd also quite clear at this point that his 'historical' (as well as idiological) perspective pales, comes up short, downright lame - IMHO - in comparison to yours, woody.

as i've mentioned, he a typical kalifornia liberal (who then left it when his/their politix ruined what was once the most vibrant state in The US)

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

In politics it matters not one whit.

Consider the idea that Trump represents some new politics, unprecedented and ooooooo so scary that only Hillary can save us now. Bovine scatology. If you like Obama, you'll love Trump.



http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/...ll-love-trump/

except that obozo is THE Lamest, most bought-off occupant of the whitehouse, EVER.
while the donald might not be 'perfect' he stands head and shoulders above both him and hitlery, if for no other reason he is NOT a career politician/apaRATchik, doesnt owe ANYBODY a GD thing for his success (more or less a bankruptcy or 2) and isnt carpetbaggin his way to fame and fortune, as per the clinton maggots.

can hardly wait to revisit the topic of 'worst prez ever' and find it HILARIOUS that some still say that wildbill is/was 'the best prez ever'...

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

you said that comey passing on an indictment handed the election to trump. i asked whether comey recommending an indictment would have been better for clinton.

Why will Comey's decision hand the election to Trump? This is just my gut talking...

Clinton is in a Siberian dilemma. An indictment would have ended her chances immediately. An acquittal simply delays her defeat. Comey's decision is so obviously politically motivated, such a slap in the face of "the rest of us" who are sentenced to prison for far lesser offenses. A lot people who were formerly willing to hold their noses while they pulled the lever for her will now be so angry and disgusted that they'll either vote for Trump or just stay home. She's just too toxic now.

"I never came upon any of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking." Albert Einstein

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Hillary Clinton was not put under oath and there is no transcript of her interview with the FBI, Director James Comey told Congress on Thursday.

He indicated they did see evidence that foreign governments tried to gain access to Mrs. Clinton’s server, though it’s impossible to know whether they succeeded.

And he said some of Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers who she turned her emails over to were not cleared for the top secret information contained on the server.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

And there you go, trolling me again. I've seen your work, SF. You are the last person who should be complaining about name calling. You dish it out in healthy portions, so please stop embarrasing yourself and the rest of us.

Trump is not my guy, my candidate, my buddy or pal. He's the instrument of destruction of the GOP. Now for that he is owed thanks by all and most certainly he has mine.

He is also the implement that with luck will destroy HRC's power grab and at this point there are few I would not support to save the republic of which I served under arms and in civil service and toward which I feel something of a proprietary interest.

Churchill said that should the devil himself be on the side of England he would manage to say a few kind words about him in the House of Commons. I feel much the same about The Donald and am happy to point out where he is right and where you are wrong. Every time.

My "guy" was and remains Bernie Sanders and since the Democracts found it expedient to shank him in the gut, figuratively, then my encouragement for Trump is merely returning the favor. You know that and also know what my sig of over a year means, but you ignore that as you do all facts that contradict the bill of goods you are working tirelessly to convince yourself has any semblance of reality. As far convincing anyone else, clearly your efforts are pointless.

You are standing out on the ledge and wondering why no one else will join you. Jump already.

I'll take that as a no.

Since the thread asks a straight forward question, here's an update from 538.org. It appears The Donald has a strong head wind.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1470450...and-government

To the great puzzlement of everyone in America, and around the world, Comey announced two things:


1. Hillary Clinton is 100% guilty of crimes of negligence.


2. The FBI recommends dropping the case.


From a legal standpoint, that’s absurd. And that’s how the media seems to be reacting. The folks who support Clinton are sheepishly relieved and keeping their heads down. But the anti-Clinton people think the government is totally broken and the system is rigged. That’s an enormous credibility problem.


But what was the alternative?


The alternative was the head of the FBI deciding for the people of the United States who would be their next president. A criminal indictment against Clinton probably would have cost her the election.
How credible would a future President Trump be if he won the election by the FBI’s actions instead of the vote of the public? That would be the worst case scenario even if you are a Trump supporter. The public would never accept the result as credible.


That was the choice for FBI Director Comey. He could either do his job by the letter of the law – and personally determine who would be the next president – or he could take a bullet in the chest for the good of the American public.


He took the bullet.


Thanks to Comey, the American voting public will get to decide how much they care about Clinton’s e-mail situation. And that means whoever gets elected president will have enough credibility to govern effectively.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

I'll take that as a no.

Since the thread asks a straight forward question, here's an update from 538.org. It appears The Donald has a strong head wind.

Could you provode a link please? Going to 538.org brings up a "Domain for Sale" page.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Could you provode a link please? Going to 538.org brings up a "Domain for Sale" page.

Of course.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

The poetry of you sourcing Nate Silver on Trump escapes you. I recall you were as admiring of his predictive abilities during the primaries.

Being a Hillary supporter means never having to say you're sorry no matter how many times you get it spectacularly wrong.

Silver’s confidence wasn’t much shaken by his big Trump miss — if anything, it’s only reinforced his belief in the superiority of his math-driven methods over shoot-from-the-lip punditry.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...e-wrong-225090

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

In politics it {logic} matters not one whit.

you're being evasive, woodsman, deliberately dense. you know i was not referring to any logic in politics, i was referring to YOUR statement that comey not recommending indictment handed the election to trump. politics is not logical, but i expect the conversation here, among members, to be logical. or are you saying that your writings here are meant for political and emotional effect only, and we should not expect you to be logical?

i would much rather expect you to be logical - it makes for more interesting and productive discussions. but if you insist that you are just being political and logic is not an ingredient, so be it.

can't you just admit that your statement "comey just handed trump the election" was an emotional reaction, and had no logical content?

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Woodsman has been around government and understands politics here better than any that I've seen. I was in government briefly as a Vista volunteer, but was born in D.C. and know a lot of the players, especially in the knowledgeable press and other areas.

Since when are elections decided on logic? You are asking for an impossible result. There is no logic in plotitics (sp. on purpose!) Politics is entertainment; it's acting, it's appealing to base emotions.

Woodsman is right. Comey destroyed Clinton's credibility. He could not have suggested indictment, as this justice department would never give one. What Comey did is perfectly logical on many levels. You cannot understand the logic of politics without understanding the emotions.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

1. Hillary Clinton is 100% guilty of crimes of negligence.

Scott Adams is usually more accurate. In this case, mere negligence, is not a crime. Comey was quite clear about that again today.

On another note, after catching only a minnow today, Republicans have promised to go after HRC for "lying to Congress" about the content of her email. The hearings will last at least until November. If she wins, they will likely last much longer than that. This is how the House is run under Republican rule.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Evading what, exactly? And for what possible reason? Really boys, don't you think this is getting a bit ridiculous?

JK, consider it my uninformed barpinion as i finish my last mojito and enjoy this beautiful afternoon. The view on Hollywood Beach is almost as good looking as my companion for the evening.

You fellas work can work it out for yourselves and I'll see what y'all came up with when I get back with you this weekend. I got a boat to catch.