Trump to win?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

i'm disheartened by woodsman and vt apparently acting as advocates for, and defenders of, trump in their discussions here. i loathe both candidates, though i'm more afraid of trump than clinton, but my feelings about the 2 are really irrelevant to discussions trying to understand "what the hell is going on" [to coin a phrase].

the theory of russian cyber-operations vs domestic-intel cyber-operations seems to me a perfectly legitimate subject for discussion. but i don't know how anyone here thinks they KNOW the truth. all you can do is argue plausibility and probability. anything beyond that is passion- it sure ain't reason.

i'm just not interested in passionate defense or passionate advocacy- i think the passion gets in the way of clear thinking. i prefer dispassionate analysis.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

scott adams' latest fwiw:

The Era of Women100+
Dilbert.com Blog





If the latest groping/kissing allegations against Trump hold up – and I assume they will, based on quantity if not credibility – it won’t matter what Wikileaks says about Clinton. She will win easily.

If Clinton wins, you’ll wonder if this invalidates the Master Persuader Hypothesis. The short answer is no, because the concept doesn’t account for unknowns of this magnitude. If a meteor had struck Trump a day before election day, it wouldn’t say much about his skill as a persuader. The Master Persuasion Hypothesis worked splendidly until the double-whammy of the Access Hollywood tape and the “octopus” meteor.

Trump could still win, but only if some new and unexpected meteor strikes Clinton. Here’s how I see it through the persuasion filter:

1. Facts and policies stopped mattering months ago. No one cares.
2. Wikileaks has no meteors to offer. The Wikileaks misdeeds involve people who are notClinton, and they involve issues that are boring and a bit complicated. The public will not be much influenced by them.
3. The “octopus” line about Trump is engineered persuasion of the highest order. It makes the story deeply visual and extra-creepy. Godzilla, or someone similarly skilled, is probably behind that word. It’s too engineered for a civilian to concoct during an interview. That’s professional work. And it’s probably a golden stake through Trump’s political heart. (Well played.)

This is a good time to remind you that I endorse Gary Johnson because he only touches himself.

Anyway, getting to the point of this post, if Clinton wins, it will be because women voted for her in landslide proportions while men (on average) preferred Trump. And that means two things of historic importance.

1. We will elect the first woman to be President of the United States. That’s good for everyone.
and…
2. Everything that goes wrong with the country from this point forward is women’s fault.

I feel some relief about that. The next four years are likely to be some of the worst in our country’s history. The Republican establishment will make sure of that because a failed America is in their best interest in the short run. Four years from now they want to offer their chosen savior (Paul Ryan). Trump would have a good chance of bullying the Republican establishment as he has done so far. Clinton, not so much. She’ll be buried in scandals, both real and imagined.

Men had a good run. We invented almost everything, and that’s cool. But we also started all of the wars and committed most of the crimes. It’s a mixed record to be sure. Now it’s time for something different, apparently.

Hillary Clinton is all yours, ladies. She and her alleged rapist husband are your brand now. Wear them well.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

JK, I have never stated any support for Trump. I have consistently called for the replacement of both political parties by a moderate, independent party.

Please retract this accusation unless you can show a post by me that shows any hint of support.

I'm with neitHER

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

1. It remains to be seen if the most productive immigrant workers go to China to work. China has to figure out a way to produce higher-value goods for this to occur but it appears to be a chicken-egg problem to me.

One major misconception is that wages in China are low, but they can vary greatly depending on the job, the industry and company. There are plenty of other reasons why people don't migrate to China to work. Language is an issue although not a major problem since even Mark Zuckerberg can learn mandarin without living in China. Pollution and fear of eating contaminated food and drinking contaminated water is a major problem.

Let's take the example of Alibaba which is based in the city of Hangzhou. Alibaba pays it's senior software engineers a base salary of $120k a year, excluding stock options i suppose.

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Ali..._D_KO14,38.htm

But what's the cost of living in Hangzhou?

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/hangzhou


Monthly rent for 85 m2 (900 Sqft) furnished accommodation in EXPENSIVE area Yuan5,678 - $843
Monthly rent for 85 m2 (900 Sqft) furnished accommodation in NORMAL area Yuan3,848 - $571
Utilities 1 month (heating, electricity, gas ...) for 2 people in 85m2 flat Yuan439 - $65


Monthly rent for a 45 m2 (480 Sqft) furnished studio in EXPENSIVE area Yuan4,557 - $677
Monthly rent for a 45 m2 (480 Sqft) furnished studio in NORMAL area Yuan2,172 - $322
Utilities 1 month (heating, electricity, gas ...) for 1 person in 45 m2 (480 Sqft) studio Yuan183 - $27

Hourly rate for cleaning help Yuan29 - $4.31

Volkswagen Golf 2.0 TDI 140 CV (or equivalent), with no extras, new Yuan335,000 -
1 liter (1/4 gallon) of gas Yuan7
Monthly ticket public transport Yuan85
Taxi trip on a business day, basic tariff, 8 km. (5 miles) Yuan34

Basic dinner out for two in neighborhood pub Yuan158 - $23
2 tickets to the movies Yuan143 - $21
Dinner for two at an Italian restaurant in the expat area including appetisers, main course, wine and dessert Yuan368 - $54
1 cocktail drink in downtown club Yuan43 - $6

2. I'm not convinced relaxing the one-child policy is going to do anything for China other than make things even worse. Encouraging a population increase in an already overpopulated country to address China's demographic "problem" sounds very similar to the idiotic economic policies of the past few decades in the developed world.

I think they will be very cautious going forward with this, especially with automation taking over many jobs - you don't want too many unemployed youths.

3. As China becomes wealthier, it is also going to develop a lot more first world problems: obesity and all of the nasty problems that come from obesity. Also, it remains to be seen if good medical care in China is going to be affordable. I seriously doubt it'll become as insanely expensive as the U.S. (I don't think any country on the planet can beat the U.S. on outrageous medical costs) but I also seriously doubt good medical care will be available to any but a very few 5% or so of the population.

China as a whole won't be first world any time soon. Parts of Western China will still be third world even in 2026. Some major cities will reach first world standards in terms of standard of living, but China will still be a developing country for a very long time. It's also not true that all first world conutries have expensive healthcare.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

i'm disheartened by woodsman and vt apparently acting as advocates for, and defenders of, trump in their discussions here. i loathe both candidates, though i'm more afraid of trump than clinton, but my feelings about the 2 are really irrelevant to discussions trying to understand "what the hell is going on" [to coin a phrase].

the theory of russian cyber-operations vs domestic-intel cyber-operations seems to me a perfectly legitimate subject for discussion. but i don't know how anyone here thinks they KNOW the truth. all you can do is argue plausibility and probability. anything beyond that is passion- it sure ain't reason.

i'm just not interested in passionate defense or passionate advocacy- i think the passion gets in the way of clear thinking. i prefer dispassionate analysis.

Sangfroid suits you doctor. But guess what, some of us can do both advocacy and analysis!

Or maybe this is just a less than clever way of stifling discussion of ideas some are said to loathe. My advocacy for Trump is detailed at the link in my sig if you're still unclear as to what motivates this early and committed Sanders supporter to punish Hilz and the Democratic Party for stealing the nomination and setting us on the scorched Earth path. And all so HRC can have her turn.

As for the "dispassionate" discussion on "cyber" (no technician who's not a salesman first hears that term without flinching - so 20th Century) operations, recall that our own resident James Bond arrogates to himself the power to set the agenda of what is "perfectly legitimate" and what is "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory." Functionally that means, a conspiracy theory that supports the "Trump as Russian Agent" canard is considered "reasonable" and everything else is an artifact of mental illness.

I'm sorry you are afraid, doctor. I find that fighting for something bigger than one's own interests helps keep fear at bay. Exercising what agency one commands does wonders to release folks of that awful learned helplessness and analysis paralysis trap.


MAGA! GO TRUMP! JAIL HILLARY! GO TRUMP! MAGA!

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

scott adams' latest fwiw:....

2. Wikileaks has no meteors to offer. The Wikileaks misdeeds involve people who are notClinton, and they involve issues that are boring and a bit complicated. The public will not be much influenced by them.
3. The “octopus” line about Trump is engineered persuasion of the highest order.

Godzilla, or someone similarly skilled, is probably behind that word. It’s too engineered for a civilian to concoct during an interview. That’s professional work

again, good ole 'dilbert' is right on the money, and following the money to boot.

the lamerstream media's newly concocted meme of 'the octopus' is, IMHO a direct ref to and meant to distract-from the longtime DOCUMENTED history of The Vampire Squid and it's backing of their WHOLLY-OWNED 'representive' the hillamonster.

and SO WHAT that wikileaks MIGHT not have any 'meteors' aka 'new news' ?

BUT WHY would anything 'new' need to be dragged up?

when there's MORE THAN ENOUGH 'old news' that trump merely needs to - as a reminder
(to the short attention span crowd, who seem to have forgotten what happened in the 90's into 2001)
that all he really needs to do, is step up to the lectern and STAND AND DELIVER the following during the final debate:

Mr. Trump, it's time for some debate judo. Here's how to bring it to St. Louis

(and i dont give a damn what anybody thinks of 'the source' - all of this has been DOCUMENTED)

By Stephen B. Meister
Published October 08, 2016

Hillary’s post-debate gains in some of the most recent polls show Trump missed opportunities and fell into traps she laid. In preparing for Sunday’s debate Trump would do well to practice a little debate-judo. (Full disclosure: I fully support Trump’s candidacy and in the past have served as his lawyer.)


Having vanquished a large field of Republican rivals, Trump was handed a YUGE gift – the most deeply flawed Democratic candidate in modern history – maybe ever.


For openers, she’s a criminal: a bribe-taker of unprecedented proportions.


Hillary and Bill Clinton have been running a racketeering operation – the Clinton Foundation – for 15 years. They monetized the Office of the Secretary of State, and now they’re looking to do the same for the Oval Office. Neither has a law license any longer, yet the couple earned not less than $8 million and as much as $28 million, every year since they left the White House, when they earned $359,000.

That’s not counting millions in private jet travel and entertainment perks provided by the Foundation,
and a $900,000 salary to Chelsea.

Donald, if you are reading this, please listen – you did a great job winning the nomination.

Winning the debates is not about being tougher; it’s about being smarter.

From the $145 million taken to approve the sale of U.S. uranium interests to Russia, to tens of millions in speaking fees from repressive regimes and Wall Street -- and we've seen from the recent WikiLeaks release just how far Hillary went in cozying up to Wall Street -- every nickel was taken in exchange for influence peddling.

Everyone knows Hillary set up her unsecure homebrew server and “Bleach-Bitted” 30,000 emails into shredded-oblivion to cover-up her crimes and stay out of jail; no one uses Bleach Bit to conceal yoga and wedding emails.


This alone should make Hillary unelectable. Yet, at the debate, Trump never pressed these points. On any question, he could’ve said:


“Hillary, what’s the difference what policies you espouse? -- Once in office your policies will be dictated by the highest bidder: the regime that donates the most money to your Foundation or pays Bill the largest speaking fee, exactly as happened when you were Secretary of State. Everyone knows you’re only out of jail because you destroyed all the evidence – your emails, using Bleach Bit – and the fix was in with the FBI and DOJ. You made the FBI an accomplice to the destruction of evidence. Your cover-up as Secretary compromised US security; as we now know, thanks to the most recent WikiLeaks release, you maintain separate "public and private" policy positions -- as President, your policies will be owned lock, stock and barrel by your foreign-regime and Wall-Street masters.”



Besides having institutionalized influence peddling, Hillary’s a congenital liar. On the next false claim she makes, Trump should say:


"Hillary you’ve been lying through your teeth for 40 years. You lied about Whitewater; you lied about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire; you lied about the Benghazi attack having been spawned by a YouTube video; you lied about not having sent or received classified information on your unprotected unencrypted homebrew basement server; and you lied about having turned over all work-related emails. You lie about everything, Hillary. Why should the voters elect you President? What possible credibility could you have with foreign leaders? And why should the voters trust you on your health claims? You have nearly blacked out, had seizures and collapsed – all on tape. You didn’t tell the public or even your own daughter or VP when you got pneumonia. Everyone on the planet knows you are compulsive liar so nothing you say should be taken as true."



When (not if) Hillary attacks Trump for the recently released 2005 audio-tape, Trump should say...


"I sincerely regret what I said to Billy Bush 11 years ago, which I realize is deeply offensive. And I've apologized. Still, actions speak louder than words. Hillary, your husband is a legendary philanderer; and you've relentlessly attacked, lied about and threatened his victims; from the woman he raped -- Juanita Broadrick -- to the 20 year-old intern Monica Lewsinsky, whom you called a 'narcissistic looney toon.'



It wasn't Juanita's or the 20 year-old Monica's fault. While Bill's unrelenting sexual predation wasn't your fault Hillary, the subsequent denials and vicious attacks on his victims were. Actions speak louder than words, and you have a 40-year record of unforgivable actions against women."


When Hillary feigns compassion for women, gays, blacks or any other minority or supposedly oppressed group, and accuses Trump of not supporting them, Trump should say:


“Really Hillary… black lives don’t matter to you, at least not when their Haitians or Congolese; gays surely don’t matter to you, you’re happy taking money from Sharia-regimes that kill gays, let alone don’t let them marry; and one of your Foundation’s largest donors, Saudi Arabia, doesn’t let women drive, let alone have the “right to choose.” Hillary you’re biggest hypocrite I’ve ever seen.”



If Hillary touts her experience and Trump’s lack thereof, instead of touting his business acumen, Trump should say:


“Really Hillary, name one success, one outstanding achievement you’ve had as Secretary of State, other than the millions in bribes you took. Benghazi, Libya, the Iran Deal? Everything you touched was a complete disaster. And President Obama did no better. Smart voters don’t want four more years of tragic failures.”



When Hillary claimed Trump rooted for the housing collapse, instead of saying that’s business, he should’ve said:


“Your husband caused it: In hair-brained effort to ‘democratize mortgage credit,’ Bill Clinton’s ‘Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending’ used a 1970 law, the Community Reinvestment Act, to force banks to lend to unqualified minority borrowers who couldn’t make a down payment. He branded resistant lenders “redliners” and his AG, Janet Reno, brought more than a dozen major fair-lending suits. He set quotas for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to buy the resulting subprime loans. This all forced lenders to make subprime loans, led to housing bubble, the subprime crisis, and ensuing housing crash.”



If Hillary claims Trump's in bed with Putin, Trump should say:


"Hillary you're the one who took $145 million in bribes to sell our uranium to Russia. Not me. Plus, Putin undoubtedly has your emails and will blackmail you so you're the Manchurian candidate, not me. Putin can't blackmail me."



And it’s not just what Trump didn’t say; it’s what he did say, when baited by Hillary. Trump needs to lay off the sideshow issues. No one cares about a former Miss America or Rosie O’Donnell. Those issues will escape voter’s minds faster than Hillary can delete 30,000 emails. Move on Donald. Stop swallowing the bait.


Donald, if you are reading this, please listen – you did a great job winning the nomination. Winning the debates is not about being tougher; it’s about being smarter. My advice? Go for the jugular (Hillary’s got a big exposed one) civilly but accurately and not some minor capillary.


Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt and flawed presidential candidate in U.S. history.


Donald, I am confident you can win this debate, win the White House, and get America winning again!

i mean - could it be ANY EASIER?
that to just print out, cut up into flashcards and read meister's italicized replies?

it's his last and best shot.

from my perspective (as a 'victim' of whats occurred the past 8 years)
i'd much rather 'take our chances' with trump, than be GUARANTEED 4 MORE YEARS
of the Most Wretchedly Corrupt, Most Twistedly Inept, Bought-Off admin in US History.

one thing is for DAMN SURE CERTAIN at this point,
the LAMERSTREAM MEDIA flatly refuses to tell The Rest of US 'the truth'

and WE WANT ANSWERS

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/10/1...-and-the-fall/

But note well: Donald Trump is not a black swan, an unforeseen event erupting upon an unsuspecting Republican Party. He is the end result of conscious and deliberate choices by the GOP, going back decades, to demonize its opponents, to polarize and obstruct, to pursue policies that enfeeble the political weal and to yoke the bigot and the ignorant to their wagon and to drive them by dangling carrots that they only ever intended to feed to the rich. Trump’s road to the candidacy was laid down and paved by the Southern Strategy, by Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, by Fox News and the Tea Party, and by the smirking cynicism of three generations of GOP operatives, who have been fracking the white middle and working classes for years, crushing their fortunes with their social and economic policies, never imagining it would cause an earthquake.
...
The GOP were busily genetically engineering the perfect host for their message, someone smooth and telegenic and...

Someone the GOP made. Someone they could control.

But they don’t control Trump, which they are currently learning to their great misery. And the reason the GOP doesn’t control Trump is that they no longer control their base. The GOP trained their base election cycle after election cycle to be disdainful of government and to mistrust authority, which ultimately is an odd thing for a political party whose very rationale for existence is rooted in the concept of governmental authority to do. The GOP created a monster, but the monster isn’t Trump. The monster is the GOP’s base. Trump is the guy who stole their monster from them, for his own purposes.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

JK, I have never stated any support for Trump. I have consistently called for the replacement of both political parties by a moderate, independent party.

Please retract this accusation unless you can show a post by me that shows any hint of support.

I'm with neitHER

ok, sorry.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

That’s not counting millions in private jet travel and entertainment perks provided by the Foundation,
and a $900,000 salary to Chelsea.

That's been debunked. http://www.snopes.com/chelsea-clinto...r-her-parents/

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Sangfroid suits you doctor. But guess what, some of us can do both advocacy and analysis!

Or maybe this is just a less than clever way of stifling discussion of ideas some are said to loathe. My advocacy for Trump is detailed at the link in my sig if you're still unclear as to what motivates this early and committed Sanders supporter to punish Hilz and the Democratic Party for stealing the nomination and setting us on the scorched Earth path. And all so HRC can have her turn.

As for the "dispassionate" discussion on "cyber" (no technician who's not a salesman first hears that term without flinching - so 20th Century) operations, recall that our own resident James Bond arrogates to himself the power to set the agenda of what is "perfectly legitimate" and what is "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory." Functionally that means, a conspiracy theory that supports the "Trump as Russian Agent" canard is considered "reasonable" and everything else is an artifact of mental illness.

I'm sorry you are afraid, doctor. I find that fighting for something bigger than one's own interests helps keep fear at bay. Exercising what agency one commands does wonders to release folks of that awful learned helplessness and analysis paralysis trap.


MAGA! GO TRUMP! JAIL HILLARY! GO TRUMP! MAGA!

i understand and respect your reason for supporting trump as an instrument for the destruction of the current political parties. i personally think as an ied he carries too much risk for collateral damage, but that's simply an opinion, and you have a different opinion. fine.

but supporting him for the reasons you do doesn't necessarily entail the kinds of defenses you offer for him. if, for example, i were to conclude as you do that the risks a trump presidency poses are de minimis compared to the desirable political consequences he would deliver, i wouldn't care whether his sexual peccadilloes were being over-advertised in comparison with bill clinton's, or whether the russians indeed were behind the hacking of the dnc.

why should those kinds of things matter if you merely support him as an instrument of destruction?

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Apology accepted, thank you.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Woodsman, you made it to Broadway!!





http://thewoodsmanplay.com/

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

i understand and respect your reason for supporting trump as an instrument for the destruction of the current political parties. i personally think as an ied he carries too much risk for collateral damage, but that's simply an opinion, and you have a different opinion. fine.

but supporting him for the reasons you do doesn't necessarily entail the kinds of defenses you offer for him. if, for example, i were to conclude as you do that the risks a trump presidency poses are de minimis compared to the desirable political consequences he would deliver, i wouldn't care whether his sexual peccadilloes were being over-advertised in comparison with bill clinton's, or whether the russians indeed were behind the hacking of the dnc.

why should those kinds of things matter if you merely support him as an instrument of destruction?

Seriously? This is even a question? Because I want him to prevail.

MAGA! GO TRUMP! JAIL HILLARY! GO TRUMP! MAGA!

MAGA! GO TRUMP! JAIL HILLARY! GO TRUMP! MAGA!

Whatever I can do to assist that I'm going to do, however insignificant to the final outcome. It's my little butterfly wings flapping in Bangor to make a typhoon in Bangladesh. But since you mention it, I don't consider his priapic behavior anywhere outside the norm of your average Fortune 1000 CEO and the like. In fact, I've personally witnessed worse.

As for "Russkies for Trump", it's just dumb and insulting and speaks of such colossal contempt these establishment figures hold for all Americans. It's my privilege to piss on it from a great height. Look out below!

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

Cheers for that jk.

It's good to see not everyone here is building a tinfoil wall.

I can see that almost everyone who is not American on this forum is trying to convey the message - something very wrong is happening to the US politics/government and if not stopped may lead to something disastrous - disastrous not only to Americans, or the whole world.

One may say Americans are fine. I'm sure Germans are fine, today, as they were 80 years ago, they are the same people? The same with Japanese people 80 years ago. The problem is not with the people, but the small group of people that are in control.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...The problem is not with the people, but the small group of people that are in control.

What do say of that Director Dulles?

Rep. Boggs. Let's say Powers did not have a signed contract but he was recruited by someone in CIA. The man who recruited him would know, wouldn't he?

Mr. Dulles. Yes, but he wouldn't tell.

The Chairman. Wouldn't tell it under oath?

Mr. Dulles. I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no.

The Chairman. Why?

Mr. Dulles. He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe not tell it to his own government but he wouldn't tell it any other way.

Mr. McCloy. Wouldn't tell it to his own chief?

Mr. Dulles. He might or might not. If he was a bad one then he wouldn't.

Rep. Boggs. What you do is make out a problem if this be true, make our problem utterly impossible because you say this rumor can't be dissipated under any circumstances.

p.154, Vol. 5. President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy,Report of Proceedings Held at Washington, D.C., Monday, January 27, 1964

I think you are naive, Jk. But only a little less than Woodsman for obvious reasons. And for those reasons this is his last word on the matter, thanks.