Hillary and Trump

[Brian]

To provide a little balance to this lopsided thread.

 

He's a buffoon or an actor -- or both.

 

I can think of no one else on the American landscape with the combination of name/face recognition and oversized, bombastic personality to fit so well the role of political opponent to further polarize the population AND lose to the single-most flawed presidential candidate I can think of in the nation's history. His occurrences of shooting himself in the foot display extraordinary consistency and precision, never quite debilitating but sufficiently damaging as to nudge Hillary into smoother waters and timed just right to provide a convenient distraction from whatever new bit of damning information has just trickled out about her.

 

I've been trying to decide whether he knows he is a pawn on a global chessboard and plays his part willingly or he honestly believes he is captain of his own ship.

 

I also wonder what will happen if the final act doesn't follow the script and The Donald actually wins the election.

[Brian]

It is unethical for physicians to make public a diagnosis without the consent of the patient. Moreover, these physicians are not her doctors. This has happened in the past in which such allegations has lead to lawsuits. Your above statement is flawed in that the 71% figure does not represent all physicians, but a small conservative organization. Your post and others constructed in the same manner are insulting to intelligent persons.

 

Addendum,

 

I just glanced at the article in question and you cherry picked what you wanted persons reading this thread to believe.

Ummm... They didn't make diagnoses but rather opined that this is troubling and warrants further inquiry.

 

It is quite interesting that the response -- not just from you but from the Clinton camp and the bulk of the mass media (as if there were really a meaningful distinction) has been not to make assertions of or provide evidence of her good health but to challenge the propriety of the question itself and to attack those who voice concern.

 

This is especially curious and the question all the more relevant given Hillary's reliance on diminished capacity resulting from traumatic brain injury in her interview with the FBI.

[Karl]

she will not lose this election bank on that. Just remember you heard the guarantee from me.

I doubt she will make it to the end of the election. During Brexit we were equally certain that the favourite could not be beaten, but on the morning after the referendum there it was in black and white. Clinton isn't well, how unwell is impossible to know, but she has cancelled many press conferences and her coughing fits, plus those moments of mental/physical weakness, add up to something going on. Is it serious ? I think being helped off stage, playing to a green screen and those violent coughing fits point to something that's getting worse.

 

The electoral game for the democrats is continuity Obama, the FED is being very careful not to create any financial destabilisation which could result in negativity for Obama's term in office-that means there is an opportunity because there is a risk which they want to play down. There really wasn't anyone in the GOPs campaign that looked even remotely challenging, Trump was considered a buffoon trying his hand and wasn't expected to do anything but add colour- as was Bernie. Clinton should have been an assured shoe-in, but Trump had such a unique strategy and a massive persona that it put Clinton under pressure. Clinton isn't physically fit, but she could be managed to an easy victory, but Trump has over turned it.

 

It's like one of those boxing matches where the favourite comes out for a couple of rounds and knocks the opponent flat without breaking a sweat, but then the fall guy opponent is replaced by a fighter with unknown strengths who turns out to be a bit handy and can take lots of punishment to boot. Now the favourite is in the fight of their lives with a bruiser who won't back down, can't be knocked out and though not skilled, is strong enough to reveal the favourite as a weak showman that the promoter has stage managed- suddenly the crowd is booing and jeering. The favourite doesn't suffer a knockout punch, but they walk off the stage defeated and in disgrace.

 

There is two whole months left of punishment for Clinton, she has to defend and Trump is wearing her down. Two months is a whole heap of punishment if you are ill and trailing the points.

[futuredaze]

Hillary will lose unless Trump says something really inappropriate/stupid or the polls become even more rigged than usual.

 

Trump is going up in the polls.  Since he has been reaching out to minorities (whether or not it is genuine is hard to tell, but confirmation bias can make it look one way or the other), talking about policies, speaking with a softer tone, speaking with the Mexican president, etc.  I'm not saying this is good or bad, but it is a fact.

 

Wait until the debates.  I did not support Trump, but I was impressed that he was able to defeat the dozen or so GOP candidates with seeming ease.  Clinton is an easier target, has lower stamina/health issues, more questionable track record, etc.  If Trump can hold composure and seem presidential, he will blow a lot of people's minds and create cognitive dissonance.  The media only presents Trump when he is riled up and aggressive, which he often is at rallies.  However, during press conference and other events, he is much more calm.

[ralis]

Ummm... They didn't make diagnoses but rather opined that this is troubling and warrants further inquiry.

It is quite interesting that the response -- not just from you but from the Clinton camp and the bulk of the mass media (as if there were really a meaningful distinction) has been not to make assertions of or provide evidence of her good health but to challenge the propriety of the question itself and to attack those who voice concern.

This is especially curious and the question all the more relevant given Hillary's reliance on diminished capacity resulting from traumatic brain injury in her interview with the FBI.

The group in question is politically conservative and does not represent all physicians as futuredaze implies. Further, why this group has not questioned Trump's mental health?

 

Hillary has been harassed more than any politician, in part given that she is a well educated, intelligent women. Seems sexist to me.

 

BTW it is unethical for a physician to even opine in this case. The public tends to believe physician authority figures and in this case will accept the opinion as fact.

Edited September 10, 2016 by ralis

[Brian]

<snip>

Seems sexist to me.

Of course it does.

[Karl]

Always allow for the novelty factor. The more things stay the same, the more people want radical change. Everyone knows Clinton is continuity Obama. Constant repetition of 'don't risk it' and 'he's a wild card' can make people who have little to lose decide that risk is a better alternative to 'more of the same'.

 

A lot of people don't like Hillary and that includes many of the Bernie supporters. Her dodgy history doesn't help, particularly the big money donations, she is sliding away from being seen as the president of the people. That's not terminal, but as she has just accused a big chunk of middle America that they a racist chumps, she has virtually dared the waverers to take the plunge and vote Trump. Ironically this has a mirror for the Brexit campaign where many people believe Obama's threats were sufficient to swing the vote.

 

So, if you don't like continuity Obama, you wanted Bernie, or you were a middle American thinking that perhaps voting for Trump was foolish, or you are getting sick of hearing about the ever more crooked Hillary and her elite....add in health concerns and she really is a lame duck.

[ralis]

This thread fails to include the myriad lawsuits against Trump, payola to the Florida AD, ripping off employees, not paying contractors and so forth.

[Karl]

This thread fails to include the myriad lawsuits against Trump, payola to the Florida AD, ripping off employees, not paying contractors and so forth.

That's because no one thinks he is either a) an angel completely sincere

 

However, everyone knows Clinton a) isn't an angel has comitted offences and is under investigation again after evading a previous one c) is involved in a foundation with some pretty big players and some not so nice foreign chaps.

 

And the cough:cough: cough: cough: coughing, collapsing on stage, freezing and somewhat suspect exaggerated head movements don't look like a strong presidential,nomination.

[CloudHands]

Are you going to vote for Trump to avoid the communist menace Brian ? 

 

I leave that thread today, and give you a break. Ralis is a way better defender that I am and by the way sorry if I offended some, it was not meant to be that way. I personally appreciate many Yankees, you included. 

[ralis]

[Brian]

This thread fails to include the myriad lawsuits against Trump, payola to the Florida AD, ripping off employees, not paying contractors and so forth.

No, it includes that stuff, too -- as well as trying to use imminent domain to turn a little old lady's home into a parking lot, making his products in Chinese factories, hiring foreign workers at his resorts, etc.

 

He bears no resemblance to a Constitutional conservative. He and Hillary are both big-government corporatist Progressives -- she by ideology and he by opportunity. In fact, his scary radical right-wing policy ideas are almost all one's Hillary endorsed just a few years ago as common-sense compassionate old-school Progressive principles (she views herself as a Woodrow Wilson style Progressive, remember).

 

The question in this election, then, is would you prefer your hummus made with chick peas or garbanzo beans? Given the options, I suppose I'd pick the hummus made by the cook who didn't get kicked off a federal commission for ethics violations and attempting to subvert the US Constitution.

 

I'm kinda picky about my bean dip...

[Brian]

Are you going to vote for Trump to avoid the communist menace Brian ?

 

I leave that thread today, and give you a break. Ralis is a way better defender that I am and by the way sorry if I offended some, it was not meant to be that way. I personally appreciate many Yankees, you included.

And I appreciate that France is our oldest ally, not to mention one of very few with whom we have not had serious conflict.

 

You really ought to do your homework, though. Start with the book which so heavily influenced Hillary as a young woman, Reveille for Radicals. I think it will be surprising.

 

I'll make it easy for you:

 

http://www.historyofsocialwork.org/1946_Alinsky/1946%2520-%2520Saul%2520Alinsky%2520-%2520Reveille%2520for%2520Radicals.pdf

[CloudHands]

And I appreciate that France is our oldest ally, not to mention one of very few with whom we have not had serious conflict.

 

You really ought to do your homework, though. Start with the book which so heavily influenced Hillary as a young woman, Reveille for Radicals. I think it will be surprising.

 

I'll make it easy for you:

 

http://www.historyofsocialwork.org/1946_Alinsky/1946%2520-%2520Saul%2520Alinsky%2520-%2520Reveille%2520for%2520Radicals.pdf

 

 

You think I'm proud of being french ? 

 

There are several of these formerly young red hearted politicians that are totally at ease in our capitalist government, so that means nothing.

 

You still don't get it, maybe in 2 or 3 centuries... if you haven't blown the whole thing away...

 

OK I stop being intolerable. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by CloudHands

[Karl]

You think I'm proud of being french ? 

 

There are several of these formerly young red hearted politicians that are totally at ease in our capitalist government, so that means nothing.

 

You still don't get it, maybe in 2 or 3 centuries... if you haven't blown the whole thing away...

 

OK I stop being intolerable. 

Capitalist government ? Not in a million years.

[Brian]

You think I'm proud of being french ?

 

There are several of these formerly young red hearted politicians that are totally at ease in our capitalist government, so that means nothing.

 

You still don't get it, maybe in 2 or 3 centuries... if you haven't blown the whole thing away...

 

OK I stop being intolerable.

Ah. You see, I was attempting to offer you a rope with which to extract yourself from the morass of ignorance and rudeness into which you seemed to have fallen. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and pretended that your childish and overly emotional response to me pointing out your hypocrisy in lecturing on the evils of America was French pride even though you had demonstrated to me long ago, both in public threads and in a disingenuous private message exchange you initiated with me, that you are just a young socialist who doesn't know his own history, let alone that of other societies and other cultures.

 

I'd bet a doughnut that you aren't of Gallic descent?

[CloudHands]

Ah. You see, I was attempting to offer you a rope with which to extract yourself from the morass of ignorance and rudeness into which you seemed to have fallen. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and pretended that your childish and overly emotional response to me pointing out your hypocrisy in lecturing on the evils of America was French pride even though you had demonstrated to me long ago, both in public threads and in a disingenuous private message exchange you initiated with me, that you are just a young socialist who doesn't know his own history, let alone that of other societies and other cultures.

 

I'd bet a doughnut that you aren't of Gallic descent?

 

I was doing humour and... Here you are.

 

No other comment.

[Karl]

I was doing humour and... Here you are.

 

No other comment.

I'm not laughing. Maybe I don't get the joke ?

[Marblehead]

I'm not laughing. Maybe I don't get the joke ?

That the thing with jokes.  If you don't grasp the punch line you miss the entire story.

 

It has been proven though, that a liberal and a conservative can be friends under certain conditions.

 

Of course, we won't see that with Hillary and Trump though.

[Karl]

That the thing with jokes.  If you don't grasp the punch line you miss the entire story.

 

It has been proven though, that a liberal and a conservative can be friends under certain conditions.

 

Of course, we won't see that with Hillary and Trump though.

I would be hard pressed to distinguish their political grouping. What do you call a Marxist crony capitalist ? I suppose that's a fascist ?

Trump is indeterminate with elements of Marxism, but with strong a strong statist streak. I suppose that makes him a fascist as well ?

 

One appears to a very corrupt fascist, the other appears to be a more ideological fascist. One appears more concerned with money, which they gain by power; the other doesn't appear to care very much for money and therefore it is power that is the chief draw.

 

Hillary can be bought, a Trump can't. Whether that means anything in the context of the small part they play in the Government is difficult to predict. Certainly Obama has paved the way for the president to have more powers than previous, but that is more likely a result of the deep states control over Obama. Trump, if he wins, would then have access to those levers and not be beholden to the deep state-if he is to be believed. We can say therefore, that Clinton is the known quantity, she is controlled by the deep state, knows her place, likes the lifestyle and gets to play cultural Marxist unopposed. Trump, if he is to be believed, will not be the puppet of the deep state-as he is in the public spotlight it would be difficult to have him removed, but they will certainly try if he won't play ball. He will inherit Obamas legacy powers as a president which means he may be a wrecking ball of state, or a builder of greater statism than even Clinton could envisage.

[Marblehead]

 

Hillary can be bought, a Trump can't.

This is important, I think.

[futuredaze]

The interesting thing about Trump is he is, psychologically speaking, something of a Rorschach.

 

For middle class Americans who are making less than they did 30 years ago, maybe saw their job go overseas, or those who think America's world power is diminishing - Trump might seem like a savior.  He is a non-establishment candidate who seems to be upfront and straightforward.  I think whatever shred of hope Americans had left for establishment politicians was ended with Obama, whose actions did not match up to his words and promises.  To them, Trump represents a much needed change.

 

Then to others, who are fed the "Trump is a racist" bit, think this guy is a power-hungry tyrant bent on pushing his dark, sinister agenda.  To be fair, Trump does speak in a "word salad" way sometimes, and often comes across as narcissistic and inconsiderate.  In Trump's defense- lots of people from New York sort of talk the way he does (in NY someone might say "we need to knock ISIS the fuck out" whereas in California they'd say "the threat of ISIS needs to be mitigated") and also, I think a lot of feminized beta males and feminists would see Trump's "alpha male" qualities as being a threat and inherently sexist.  However, I would not talk the way Trump does, but I can't deny that for many it is persuasive. 

 

In the past couple weeks, Trump has been doing what people are calling "the softening" which involves talking in a softer tone, saying less controversial stuff, reaching out to minority groups, speaking to world leaders, talking about policy instead of typical Trump tangential rant.  His poll ratings are going up, which might have to also do with the fact that he has said less controversial stuff recently.

 

Trump is pretty hard to examine rationally.  However that is no problem, since people are fundamentally irrational, and the media is very good at feeding into our emotions and psychological biases to get us to think whatever they want us to think, with feeding us a minimal, distorted picture.  Then the supporters of Trump are quick to disregard all the negative stuff about Trump, which is also not really a good idea.  As a skeptic, I don't know how he'd do.  I admit it.  I think he'd do better than Hillary, since we know sort of what to expect from her (Obama pt 2, maybe a bit worse, maybe a bit better), but I could be wrong.  I was wrong about Obama, which made me distrust the modern Democratic Party.

Edited September 11, 2016 by futuredaze

[Karl]

This is important, I think.

It is, but for the sake of balance it should be stated that neither Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol pot or Mussolini could be bought. An ideologue can be just as dangerous as a corrupt leader, it all depends on the leader.

 

Best that we don't depend on 'leaders' at all because it's dangerous to do so. A benevolent Tyrant is still a tyrant.

 

Get your constitution back USA, for the sake of everyone on the planet.

[ralis]

It is, but for the sake of balance it should be stated that neither Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol pot or Mussolini could be bought. An ideologue can be just as dangerous as a corrupt leader, it all depends on the leader.

 

Best that we don't depend on 'leaders' at all because it's dangerous to do so. A benevolent Tyrant is still a tyrant.

 

Get your constitution back USA, for the sake of everyone on the planet.

 

If you are referring to Constitutional originalism that some are purveyors of, then the US could easily go back to slavery, deny women the right to own property and deny voting to anyone that doesn't own land.

Edited September 11, 2016 by ralis

[Brian]

If you are referring to Constitutional originalism that some are purveyors of, then the US could easily go back to slavery, deny women the right to own property and deny voting to anyone that doesn't own land.

You may not have noticed but there are two processes built right into the Constitution by the men who wrote it for making changes to it. One has been used many times (including to undo a previous change) and the other might see use very soon.

 

Any other approach to changing it, though, is illegal.