Trump to win?

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

So white protestant nativist Goldwater fascists and Confederate revanchists have made common cause to take down the US system by

1. Opposing a white protestant Midwestern Goldwater activist born in an all-white upper middle class Republican suburb and
2. Advancing a white protestant New York Yankee born in an all-white upper middle class Republican suburb.

I'm sorry, but this strikes me as a most bizarre narrative. I suppose it's necessary to concoct something so out of bounds with reality if one really sees this as Armageddon or a new Civil War. In that context give no quarter means an absence of mercy and the intent to kill your enemy even as they raise their arms in unconditional surrender. This intent to "destroy them so we can move forward" has such a "final solution" ring to it. I would call it out for the shame it is, but people who hold it are likely debased beyond shame.

+1, to nth Power.
sez this American of Irish Catholic Ancestry (tho not so much catholic anymore, just Irish)

those that espouse such INFLAMMATORY drivel as expressed by santa are The Enemy of all The Rest Of US that have given their all and paid the price to be called 'American'

even IF it's not quite as proudly-felt as it used-to be, prior to 2008.

and if that makes ME deplorable?

I AM PROUD TO WEAR THE LABEL.

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

This was the point I was making earlier jk. The ‘phenomenon’ has been going on in the US since the mid 19^th Century. It was Irish Catholics who the ‘Trump phenomenon’ Nativists wanted removed from the US in the 1850s. White privilege is more correctly identified as white protestant privilege.....

now here's a conundrum santa - i both agree with what you say, yet at the same time feel slandered by it.

and WHAT?
'no comment' on the T Frank video piece?
which has been the most salient and accurate - IMO - explanation of whats occurred in The US - and precisely since the 1990's thru to the criminal takeover of the us.gov that happened during the OBOMBA and HillBilly show

no comment, eh?
thot so.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

I believe most of the bad things said about Trump's past and Clinton's past. They are both deplorable and neither should be rewarded with the presidency. But one of them will be.

So, setting aside the desire to punish them for past behavior, I'd like to to hear people's thoughts on their future potentials. What GOOD or BAD things do you believe they might DO as president? Here's my initial list.

Clinton:

• CON - Likely to start wars.
• CON - May sign the TPP.
• CON - May pay Wall St. what she owes them.

Trump:

• CON - Wants tax cuts for the rich (himself).
• CON - Trickle down economics.
• ??? - Will have Pence do most of the work. (Better or worse? Pence is no prize, IMO.)
• CON - Alt Right will be emboldened.

clinton-

con- more of the same economically

con- more of the same re immigration

con- more of the same domestic surveillance

con [or perhaps "pro"]- likely gridlock- although the senate might become majority democrat it is very unlikely to be filibuster-proof. the house is very likely to remain republican with a vocal ultra-right "freedom caucus" have an inordinately large voice.

pro- [imo] supreme court appointments more likely to limit corporate involvement in elections and uphold limits on campaign spending, more likely to restore some of the oversight recently eliminated from the voting rights act, more likely to weigh 1st amendment cases in favor of expression vis a vis state interests.

========

trump-

con - starts a trade war with unrealistic trade and exchange rate demands - e.g. the chinese are working to keep the yuan from going down right now, while trump demands they strengthen it, threatening a 45% tariff.

con- promotes racial profiling of immigrants and of citizens ["law and order"]

con- vast domestic surveillance resources will be further increased in the name of anti-terrorism and law and order. trump has said he wanted to "open up" libel laws [which really exist on the state, not federal, level] to be able to muzzle the press when it is not to his liking. it is unclear where this will leave the media. e.g. i think edward snowden is a hero. in '13 trump said he should be executed. clinton is slightly less severe, saying he should do jail time.

con [imo] - may appoint 3 or even 4 supreme court justices, who in turn will expand on rulings like citizens united and the gutting of the voting rights act. corporate power will grow even greater and be ensconced in that position for at least a generation.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

This may be where our points-of-view part. We are a country of laws. The rule of law is not fairly distributed but it’s far better than the alternative. I too have sympathy for people who cannot navigate this rapid change but I despise those who find solace in this direction. While they are not the criminal, they are the accomplice. They are aiding and abetting. I’ve zero sympathy for this position.

there's no law that the victims of the global labor arbitrage could not be compensated, retrained, given other jobs. the benefits of trade are sufficiently large that all the losers can be compensated and the country still come out ahead. instead the costs were ignored, and losers just suffered while elites did just fine, thank you. yes, this followed from the laws we have. no, those laws are not just or fair, but the product of bureaucratic capture, revolving doors, financialization and the general capture of our gov't by moneyed interests. to hide this reality behind "rule of law" is a con game.

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

.... We are a country of laws. The rule of law is not fairly distributed but it’s far better than the alternative. ....

forgot to address this one.

my observation is that WE ARE NO LONGER a 'country of laws'

not when the sitting president can make statements - without challenge - such as:

"Some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal."

which has been refuted by the voluminously documented evidence - from multiple documenters of it - that proves conclusively that 'some of that least ethical behavior' was IN FACT, very illegal.

never mind the GLARING & IN YER FACE 'conflicts of interest' that have been also been highlighted by media outlets that are typically 'to the left of center'

yet, you and the rest of the 'with her' crowd, appear to be IN DENIAL of these FACTS..

and i'll ask the same question thomas frank asks?

WHY IS THAT ?

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

there's no law that the victims of the global labor arbitrage could not be compensated, retrained, given other jobs. the benefits of trade are sufficiently large that all the losers can be compensated and the country still come out ahead. instead the costs were ignored, and losers just suffered while elites did just fine, thank you. yes, this followed from the laws we have. no, those laws are not just or fair, but the product of bureaucratic capture, revolving doors, financialization and the general capture of our gov't by moneyed interests. to hide this reality behind "rule of law" is a con game.

and good/fair points on the 'pro vs con' on both of them, jk.

but i'd just as soon 'take our chances' with someone who ISNT a 'product' of, producer-of, beneficiary-of and 'contributor' to the MALFEASANCE that passes for 'governance' in today's Fascist State of amerika.

and that 'product-of & producer-of' would be the hillbilly show.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

The recording of Trump bragging about how he objectifies and assaults women is going to do a lot of damage, and it should! He apologized but he's not sorry. He's only sorry he got caught.

How much of his talk was real and how much was empty braggadocio? It doesn't matter. It shows he is part of the rape culture. I'm not accusing him of rape. I'm saying he's a participant in the rape culture in which men feel entitled to violate our boundaries and our bodies.

Here's a Frontline documentary describing Clinton and Trump's childhoods, how they grew up and what influences shaped them. Trump grew up in a military academy with boys all trying to out-macho each other with locker room talk, reading Playboys and aspiring to the Hugh Hefner lifestyle. They thought that this was what it meant to be a man. Apparently he is emotionally stunted at that age.

My choice boils down to an immature boy-in-man's-body who treats women as objects, yet has elevated women in his organization to high positions, who apparently thinks he can run the presidency on improv -versus- a thoroughly corrupt woman who enables her serial rapist husband and will almost definitely sign the TPP, dismantle the second amendment and our borders, and take us into WWIII.

I want a do-over!

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

..... one example of a systemic process that has been going on throughout the country for two or three decades, and was made stronger by the 2008 crash. I don't blame any one person for it, and I don't think any one person, Trump or Clinton or Sanders, has the ability to turn it around.

again, Ms Ellen - i'd agree with most of what you said, but will disagree with NOT 'blaming any one person' - as that, in my mind, amounts to an apologist cop out.

not when it was Harry Truman who said "the buck stops here"

and NOT when observations such as this (below) suggest that the current occupant decided to drop HIS responsibility to The Rest of US:

This is not only because of those 'evil Republicans,' but because Obama played it the way he wanted to. Even when he had a majority in both houses of Congress and could choose whoever he wanted to be in his administration, he consistently made policies that favored the top 10 percent over everybody else. He helped out Wall Street in an enormous way when they were entirely at his mercy.

He could have done anything he wanted with them, in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did in the ’30s. But he chose not to.

esp NOT when he appointed eric holder - a revolving-door holder-over from the first clinton reign of corruption, incompetence and deceit - signaled to the entire FIREM criminal syndicate that they would
NOT ONLY BE BAILED OUT TO THE TUNE OF T.R.I.L.L.I.O.N.S - but they would ALL walk, free and clear (cept for bernie madoff, that is) with the BIGGEST BONUSES IN HISTORY ??? (the year after they were all 'technically bankrupt')while (most of) The Rest of US got S.C.R.E.W.E.D

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

The recording of Trump bragging about how he objectifies and assaults women is going to do a lot of damage, and it should! He apologized but he's not sorry. He's only sorry he got caught. ...
...
I want a do-over!

yeah me too!

but do you REALLY believe, Ms Shiny! -
that 'nobody in the clinton machine WOULD EVER SAY' similarly lewd, sexist or 'misogynistic' stuff ??

GASP!!
certainly not Bill, nooooooo ma`am!

(just another one of the social justice worrier movement's fave 'weaponized' words aimed by mostly the feminazis on the 'with her express' )

the 'double standard' exposed by trump's latest gaffe is certainly curious...

and i dont ever recall hearing 'an apology' out of Bill, for his documented serial-rapist behavior, can anybody?

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

this just in...

Dilbert's Scott Adams Outlines 14 Reasons Why 'The Trump Tapes' Don't Matter

"Today America united as a nation to decide how many alleged Trump gropes equals one alleged Bill/Hillary Clinton rape. "

• Oct 8, 2016 2:55 PM

along with this:

Trump Issues Midnight Apology To Contain Tape Fallout As Republicans Pull Support, Call For Trump To Withdraw

Donald Trump sought to stem an uproar that threatened his campaign by apologizing in a midnight video for obscene sexual remarks caught on tape in 2005. Trump’s apology came as he was under intense pressure from GOP leaders, amid an unprecedented outpouring of anger from conservatives, some of whom are demanding he pull out of the race entirely.

• Oct 8, 2016 9:20 AM

and this:

Trump Tells WSJ There Is "Zero Chance I'll Quit"

In an interview with the WSJ, Donald Trump has said there’s "zero chance I'll quit" adding that his campaign is not in Crisis and that ‘the support I’m getting is unbelievable."

• Oct 8, 2016 2:18 PM

and this...

Dead People And Illegal Immigrants Are Being Registered To Vote All Over America

Without free and fair elections, what hope is there for the future of America?

• Oct 8, 2016 3:50 PM

and never mind this:

Podesta Emails Reveal Illegal Coordination With David Brock Super PAC

These Podesta emails clearly show coordination between the Hillary campaign and the David Brock Super PAC, "Correct the Record", which we believe is technically a felony.

• Oct 8, 2016 4:20 PM

things are 'heating up' now tho...

Russia Responds To Formal Cyberattack Accusations, Calls Them "Unprecedented Anti-Russian Hysteria"

Russia has responded to the first official accusation by US intelligence services that Moscow was behind the recent spike in political cyber attacks, saying the US lacked any proof and the formal charges were an attempt by Washington to fan "unprecedented anti-Russian hysteria", the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said.

• Oct 8, 2016 10:55 AM

along with the admin's 'brilliant' foreign policy (with hill and john F(raud) K's 'masterful oversight')

"Everything You Hear About Aleppo Is Wrong"

What's really going on in Aleppo? Are Assad and Putin exterminating the population for sport? Is it a war against US-backed "moderates"? That is what the mainstream media would have us believe.

• Oct 8, 2016 12:30 PM

with some 'interesting' developments, 'courtesy of' the above 'masterful oversight', of course:

Russia Deploys Nuclear-Capable Missiles To Kaliningrad, Near Polish Border

Russia shipped its nuclear-capable Iskander missile system toward Kaliningrad, its territorial enclave bordering Poland, according to Western government officials, "introducing a powerful military asset into an already tense region and prompting expressions of concern by allied officials."

• Oct 8, 2016 3:18 PM

but NOTHING TO SEE THERE, likely NONE of which will make the C...N...N...
(clinton news network) evening edition

nope... likely nothing, except for trump's latest 'deplorable' actions

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

The recording of Trump bragging about how he objectifies and assaults women is going to do a lot of damage, and it should! He apologized but he's not sorry. He's only sorry he got caught.

!

there have been a lot of comments from pols and journalists about his LANGUAGE. how about his behavior? he describes [and has been described by women with whom he interacted] as committing sexual assault. i hope that at the town hall some questioner asks trump what he'd think if someone grabbed ivanka's crotch.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

there have been a lot of comments from pols and journalists about his LANGUAGE. how about his behavior? he describes [and has been described by women with whom he interacted] as committing sexual assault. i hope that at the town hall some questioner asks trump what he'd think if someone grabbed ivanka's crotch.

The pearl clutching and phony outrage is hilarious. Bill gets a hummer in the oval office, grabs Kathleen Willey's crotch and left boob in the same venue, Hillary and her surrogates harass Bill's rape victims Juanita Broderick and Paula Jones, and these freaks are lecturing Americans about virtue?

The way it works is one alpha-male gets a pass from the media for rape, the other gets raked over the coals for unguarded lewd dude-talk. One is literally a serial rapist and the other said he likes "pussy." Well Katie bar the door! I hate to break it to you folks, but one of the big reasons boys like to grow up and become chief executives and heads of state is access to "pussy." I know us regular guys hate the thought of it, but we've seen it enough, haven't we boys? It seems like 9 times out of 10, wealthy and powerful men can get as grabasstic as they want to be with practically any woman and it seems most of these women - married or otherwise - have a fine time with it. I've seen it, I've lived it. It's not nice, but whoever told you the real world was nice wasn't your friend.

Anyway, titillating as the sexual mores of the rich and powerful may be, I think people see through the double standard and the desperate dirty tricks. Even with the Clinton people putting out one of these hit jobs a day, I don't think it's going to work as they expect. Remember, this was supposed to be a coronation, a walk in the park. And still she can't put Donald "fascist pussy lover" Trump away.

It's not over. It's just getting started. Hell, it won't be over the morning after election day and that's especially if Trump manages a win.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

there have been a lot of comments from pols and journalists about his LANGUAGE. how about his behavior? he describes [and has been described by women with whom he interacted] as committing sexual assault. i hope that at the town hall some questioner asks trump what he'd think if someone grabbed ivanka's crotch.

I sincerely hope someone asks him that, just as I hope someone asks HRC how she say she supports the dignity of women while at the same time seeking financial donations from mysogenistic Arabs, enabling her serial rapist of a husband and threatening his victims.

As far as I'm concerned, both Trump and HRC should be disqualified. Again, if this was about racial slurs and assaults instead of sexual slurs and assaults, there would be no question! To rationalize Trump's behavior towards women by saying, "they all talk like that" and "HRC is worse" is basically telling women to just "lie back and think of England."

The same people who support Trump because they're fed up with the political elites', "Vote for us even though you know we'll screw you over, because the other side will screw you over worse," are now using this same rationalization when it comes to sexual assault.

I violated my principles and ignored my conscience when I saw Trump encourage the ouster of a peaceful Sikh gentleman during one of his rallies, but decided to overlook it for the "greater good." I'm not going to do that anymore. With these two candidates, we're in a Siberian Dilemma. I'm going to vote for "None of the Above."

If the majority of people who despise both candidates voted their conscience by writing in "None of the Above," we would win. What would happen if "None of the Above" got the majority of popular votes?

PS: I still love you, Woody!

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Hey Shiny, just write in VT.

I've outlined my independent third party; the New Majority Party. Socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Plus unlike Gary Johnson I know where Aleppo is and the names of world leaders.

We only need 34% and hold the unpopular jerks to 33% or less.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Hey Shiny, just write in VT.

I've outlined my independent third party; the New Majority Party. Socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Plus unlike Gary Johnson I know where Aleppo is and the names of world leaders.

We only need 34% and hold the unpopular jerks to 33% or less.

Hiya, vt. Most people who take The World's Smallest Political Quiz fall into the libertarian category of being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Since the Libertarian party is already established, you might consider joining them and attempting to moderate some of their more extreme, impractical positions.