Hillary and Trump

[redcairo]

I think it is a mistake to call "being mature and professional and supportive" of a coworker you are replacing or getting promoted far above -- even if you think they are a vile reptilian -- evidence of being a liar.

 

This is how the adult world works: you don't go, "Haha sucker! Beat you and I hate you! Go home and cry!" You say, "I'd like to thank Jack for all the hard work he's put in for years, he's a great guy and he's done a great job, and I hope you'll join me in wishing him well in his future career."

 

This is appropriate. It does not represent a character flaw, it represents an ability to win gracefully.

 

As for Trump saying stupid things, of course he's said stupid things, geez the list is endless!

 

Most were off the cuff casual personal response, which of course is seen as if he had drafted and voted in an entire policy or something, and which both he and his VP attempted to correct for (disallowed by anyone hating on him or media).

 

A few were spontaneous cheerleading at rallies, which most people take seriously for intent (e.g. yes he wants to address our problems with illegal immigration) but don't take literally (it'll be a miracle if he even gets to the two MILLION convicted criminal illegals out the door and vastly better security in place to reduce the insane numbers, and I'm willing to bet once that is secure there will be a massive but gradual amnesty done, but they can't say a word about that now or they will only increase the border numbers by far).

 

In the past all we've had are career politicians who work very hard to NEVER be honest or spontaneous and ALWAYS have carefully crafted speeches and phrases and what have we got from that? A continuing spiral toward doom. So those things don't seem nearly as important now as someone willing to address the spiral.

 

RC

[redcairo]

I think what some people are still missing, even after all this, is that the only thing Trump offered anybody was hope something might finally change -- specifically the things on his list of plans.

 

If he fails to do ANY of them, we will be no worse off than we were before. In fact, for having avoided Clinton gutting the Bill of Rights, and not getting to appoint a supreme court judge or two, and not making things even worse with Russia (as opposed to just continuing permawar), we will be significantly BETTER off, even if he just spent the next four years clipping his toenails.

 

So the worst he can do is likely disappoint people by not accomplishing what he promised. But it isn't like, "Had we known he wouldn't succeed, we'd have voted for Hillary." HRC was not an option for most of his voters at all for her own reasons.

 

Of course there is the small chance that he is a lunatic who will somehow blow up earth, but you know, I'm an optimist hoping for a better outcome. :-)

 

RC

[dawei]

The whole thing is a lie, not just Trump, nor Clinton, it's the economy they told you was great and the education that was improving, the inflation that was low, the just wars, the evil Russia, that there are no genders, that everyone can be equal, that all inflation is good, that all immigration is good, that free speech is dangerous, that rights are priviliges and security means mass surveillance and the curtailing of Liberty. That if you wish it, that it can be and they can make it so.

 

Reject it all. Think for yourselves, don't rely on Governments, be independently productive, stop trying to obtain values by force and substituting altruism for reality.

 

This was always the inevitable outcome of an irrational, evasive and wilfully ignorant people. Eventually a Trump would come. Maybe this isn't yet the final iteration, perhaps a lot worse is yet to appear.

 

For me, I don't listen that much to what they say in the election cycle anyways... and if someone's going to start pulling up things someone said or did 30 years ago, I'll just continue to tune that out.   Sometimes, I just laugh at the whole thing.

 

Why no outrage over what DT says or HC did ?    It just doesn't really matter enough to take it too seriously.   Balance out all the BS on both sides, see what comes through in terms of what you feel might be at least better (the lesser of two evils).

[ralis]

Since I always assume most people are rational (which keeps turning out to be wrong), I have kept assuming that I must have just missed a lot of stuff. Now that the election is over, and I've been ill so it's kinda like, I feel crappy I might as well watch politics ha, I've been looking for video of the various "horrible things" DJT said that were advertised during HRC's campaign.

 

I'm finding a lot of things taken wildly out of context. For example if in the process of an outright fight with/about someone specific, he would say, that person is a slob, the claim would be, "D-T said that women are slobs!" because that person happened to be a woman. Several of the 'insults about women' attributed to him are off the cuff comments he made about an individual which were promptly made into something he said broadly about the entire gender of womanhood, which is ridiculous.

 

I don't know anybody who has never in their life, when irate at someone they had cause to dislike, not said something negative about them or dissed them with some term of reference. Most the people I know use far harsher and more epithet-laced wording than he does.

 

He did say numerous things about individual women and most were demeaning in terms of what they looked like. Some I found amusing, and not so much injust as too horribly honest, such as:

 

 

His personal relationship with women romantically seems to be partly as a mentor, and to some degree he keeps them in a degree of designed dependence -- but they become independent as part of his interaction with them, which is to say they grow and change and become successful -- saying it feels a little like a project or buiding and at that point he is done, and it's a little sad. I actually understood that -- I suspect he is simply more conscious of this process than most people, but I know many women and men both who operate like that to some degree with other people romantically.

 

He is quoted as saying -- in the context of some to-other-men offhand communications -- things like "you have to treat them like s****." I remember actually crying when I read Crowley's commentary on treating women like dogs when I was younger, not because I hated him for it, but because I recognized that humans are animals, and this goes for both men and women not just women, and that humans really do respond to this sort of thing in that way (animal training) and it was just so sad to realize we are not nearly as gloriously above the animal kingdom as we'd like to think. (Of course we hate anybody who recognizes that.) As for women -- read any good pick-up artist book and you'll see the sync with some of his comments. Men who go through a lot of women don't so much say these things because they are horrible -- they say these things because they are experienced, and sometimes the truth just happens to be horrible, though obviously nothing applies to every person ever. It is not for no reason that there are whole cultural memes about why woman friend-zone nice guys and sleep with jerks.

 

One thing I found repeated in a few articles was this: "D-T joked about dating girls under 17." What he actually said was in some humor

 

Some people have no sense of humor.

 

He is also well known for being extremely supportive and flattering of his daughter in many ways including her beauty -- she worked as a model and made a ton of money, which he referenced (and was then insulted for the allegedly creepy reference to his daughter having 'a great figure') and then quoted with much hysteria about this:

 

I guess if you're backseat driving things it could seem inappropriate but it was literally marketed as "joking about incest" in a way that is in my view totally injust. {Woody Allen was reported by a judge in an investigation to have fondled (and 'looked at naked') his 7 year old adoptive daughter.} He was on TV and trying to make light of what to ME was actually an inappropriate reference on TV2's part, more than his.

 

He was dissed for having said in his book, because he was "comparing women to buildings":

 

Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art, is not just superficial or something pretty to see.

 

And that's on the list of BAD things he said. Go figure.

 

Many of the things he's attacked for were said a> before the campaign and b> in the "shock jock radio" setting with Howard Stern, which is a "say outrageous controversial stuff" kind of environment frankly. Taking stuff from the past and from that environment and acting as if he said this on the campaign trail (how inappropriate!) is itself disingenuous.

 

Sometimes though it doesn't matter what you say, you burn for it. Howard Stern asks if he's ever "reduced himself" to "sleeping with a fat woman." (Howard you jerk! - rc) In response, DJT said he is actually attracted to women who are a bit chunky. He was attacked for referring to a woman's size like that.

 

He's said worse -- Howard got him talking about women's breasts, he said he'd been with women who had 'terrible boob jobs' and 'pancake tits' and that he thought any woman who had a breast reduction was insane. Not surprisingly that got press ad nauseum.

 

He was accused of calling women 'gold diggers' in response to his comments, when asked, on actor Anne Hathaway, who married an extremely successful man, but then left him following his publicized "financial and legal troubles." He said, "So when he had plenty of money, she liked him. But then after that, not as good, right?"  I personally have no problem with him saying that. Maybe that wasn't the cause, but for a rich man, seeing that a young beautiful starlet marries an older rich guy then abandons him when he's not doing so well anymore is hardly a novel observation. Calling her, or calling women, "gold diggers" may be implied there but to me accusing him of this for a comment in response to a question like that is just unfair.

 

Some of his comments that got lots of "applied to women" as opposed to an individual were about Rosie O'Donnell, that he said is, "...disgusting, both inside and out. If you take a look at her, she's a slob. How does she even get on television? If I were running The View, I'd fire Rosie. I'd look her right in that fat, ugly face of hers and say, 'Rosie, you're fired.' We're all a little chubby but Rosie's just worse than most of us. But it's not the chubbiness - Rosie is a very unattractive person, both inside and out." Well he clearly despises the woman but that doesn't make me think he hates the entire gender.

 

He allegedly insulted the LGBT movement by saying, "Rosie's a person who's very lucky to have her girlfriend. And she better be careful or I'll send one of my friends over to pick up her girlfriend, why would she stay with Rosie if she had another choice?"  It was assumed he was referring to a man not a woman as 'the friend' and that he was implying a woman would only be with another woman if a man didn't want her. I think that's reading a whole lot into something he didn't say. And again this was part of a brief but harsh rant about an individual. Not a commentary on gayness.

 

In 2011 during a court proceeding the opposing female attorney said she had to take a break to breastfeed her 3 month old infant. (Why she would volunteer the reason, and/or why she would not have a solution for this -- I used a breast pump ahead of time and my husband fed my baby if I were not available -- is beyond me. - rc) DT's legal team objected to the timing of the break (perhaps it seemed too convenient given the situation) and she pulled out her breast pump and apparently there was some argument about all of it. Eventually DT walked out of the room telling the woman she was disgusting.

 

Why he said that is unclear, he doesn't dispute any of it at all in fact, but this was promoted as "DJT says breastfeeding is disgusting."  Really? A family man like that, and who openly loves big breasts on women? -- ha, I don't assume he thinks that at all. There is no more detailed context that I could find, than what I provided, on what he said or why. Only a couple factoids in a larger discussion within a larger issue. But you see what I mean about how every possible thing from every point in his highly public history is basically removed from most context, and then overapplied generally to "everyone" not just one person or one situational moment, and then used as the alleged basis for why he is so horrible.

 

He's an overmacho jerk sometimes, show me a highly aggressive highly successful man who is not. I'm sure they exist I've just never met one. A pronounced sexuality, tendency to be critical even verbally, and focus on physical appearance has always come with those traits with the men I've known, for whatever reason.

 

He owned multiple "beauty pageants." The contestants are said to have "complained that Trump consistently objectified women." Bwahahahaha!  Women in a beauty pageant complain that a man is objectifying women? Are they not doing this themselves by even BEING in that kind of thing? What the heck?! Mahsa Saeidi-Azcuy says: So much of the boardroom discussion concerned the appearance of the female contestant - discussing the female contestants' looks - who he found to be hot. He asked the men to rate the women - he went down the line and asked the guys, 'Who's the most beautiful on the women’s team?'" -- oh brother. Of course he wanted to know their top choices of candidates beauty personally. It's a pageant about beauty. Their views likely reflect the views of future watchers to some degree. Of course they discussed the contestants. I've had board meetings where we discussed our products in the same way, they weren't people but they definitely came up in discussion, that's usually how these things work. It's like every possible attempt was made to "find" a reason to say this guy was horrible --

 

-- and make no mistake he said plenty of bonehead things on his own --

 

-- but the "Help" given making him look bad via lack of context, over-offense, invented offense, broadly-applied out of context offense, and more, is really just ridiculous.

 

He is essentially a rock star as far as women throwing themselves at him goes, and some of his comments reflect this.

 

He was blamed for "not asking why so many sex assaults go unreported or so many men are not brought to justice", just because he tweeted this:

If anything it seems to me he was more on the side of women in that statement, but of course if he didn't write a whole term paper on the victimized woes of women then he isn't sympathetic "enough" and is said to be blaming rape not on rapists but on the mere fact that people were living together. Again, a lot of assumption about something he didn't even say.

 

He referred to a very harsh, out-for-blood female interviewer a bimbo after the fact, and at another point in referring to the interview said "...you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever." This was held up as an example of him saying that the interviewer being 'tough on him' was merely because she was on the rag, or menstruating. He said that wasn't what he meant at all. You won't be surprised to learn the feminists don't believe him. 

 

He pretty much wiped out a huge chunk of women's votes with:

 

His VP is religiously rabid about it so I imagine that was his compromise, but even if true, if there is ever any question about moving a decision to state level rather than federal level I am nearly always for it -- I see that as only better empowering the people to truly cause effect within their governing and to locate themselves in the nation-state they relate to best.

 

He was accused of unfairly 'reacting' to Hillary's direct insults about his comments on women, by pointing out her own behavior toward the (many) women her husband had accuse him of outright rape. At a rally he said:

 

 

I am boring even myself at this point so I will stop.

 

But I just don't think that even when he did say something rude, that it is so horrific as to literally be more important than him being the first NON-SYSTEM, SELF-FUNDED person who truly wants to change the system and restore important constitutional elements to the country.

 

Funny, I like him better now than I did before the election, because I've gone and read and watched a lot more of his actual stuff and specifically searched for the things he is publicly accused of. If anything I am even more shocked that such trivial BS and most of it years prior and in specific off-the-cuff environments would be used like they had ANYTHING TO DO WITH important political, government issues. And bottom line, he employs lots of women, he gives them ranking positions, he gives them good money -- the very thing that feminists have long said is such an important metric on how well a man truly validates a woman.

 

RC

 

I have watched his comments in context and I find that I am not in agreement with your assessment of him. Further, his recent hiring of Steve Bannon sends the wrong message to this country.

 

BTW, Spaceter's comments regarding persons that disagree with his views that Trump is not a racist and so forth, therefor have low IQ's, are 'dumb', is reprehensible. 

[Karl]

For me, I don't listen that much to what they say in the election cycle anyways... and if someone's going to start pulling up things someone said or did 30 years ago, I'll just continue to tune that out. Sometimes, I just laugh at the whole thing.

 

Why no outrage over what DT says or HC did ? It just doesn't really matter enough to take it too seriously. Balance out all the BS on both sides, see what comes through in terms of what you feel might be at least better (the lesser of two evils).

I don't see it as a lesser of two evils, to me it is an inevitable corrolary of evading reality and thus being pragmatic relativists devoid of the requirement for principles.

 

It's like the Bibles flood stories where God gets angry and visits the Godless immoral with destruction. Trump isn't the saviour, he is the result of evading reality. It could be said that the Democrats created him, but in turn the democrats were created by the people. Every civilisation that tries to evade reality eventually ends up under the rule of a vile dictatorship. As they say, all it takes is for good men to do nothing, to ignore what's going on, or to settle for some kind of compromise and evil will flourish.

 

I don't know if Trump is the flood, but sure as day turns to night the dice are spinning. It is no longer if, but when.

 

If people thought rationally they would realise that they are far better focusing on saving their souls than saving their lives. Hell can manifest in the middle of civilisations as it has done consistently, so it's better we defeat evil in ourselves and not support its proliferation.

[redcairo]

Well if you tune out all the accusations and all the noise -- turn off the sound and back off for a bigger picture -- you're left with "the official platform issues" of both parties.

 

The news media was so busy going on about how horrible Trump was for saying X, they rather failed to spend much time talking seriously about whatever HRC's issues were. If you'd like to see them, her presentation on her website is here:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

But you have to go to the site, and click about 40 times, to see. It basically requires someone already be obsessively interested in her to even get half a clue of what she might stand for.

 

If you'd like to see DJT's issues, his presentation on his website is here:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/contract/

The page itself has a 1-click simple overview, which you can save (as it's a PDF) and email to anyone. He set the page itself up as a "contract" -- a "deal with him" to 'sign' which is also an email signup if you like. Nice sales psychology there.

 

Here's another example, even in the websites, of difference: the website browser title and search engine meta title "title" and metadata:

of HRC's site: "Hillary Clinton 2016."

of DJT's site: "Make America Great Again." 

 

Then you get to the actual issues.

 

DJT's top focus points (he narrowed it down to 3 top-level categories, then 'the rest'):

Ending corruption in government;

enforcing constitutional law;

economy and jobs.

 

HRC's top focus points (which appear to be 40 separate issues, so no higher grouping):

LGBT rights,

disability rights,

racial justice (?!),

addiction and substance abuse help;

making sure people with money pay higher taxes.

 

Even farther down the list on broader topics, HRC's are generic and sound like they got added as an afterthought or less-important trivia (like "rural communities" and "small business" -- as titles, those suck, they don't say anything, nor do the blurbs even, and you'd have to click to go into the detail of whatever might be planned). It's obvious what is important to her.

 

The whole presentation online is almost in-a-nutshell meta-level example.

 

And don't get me wrong, it is not that I think some of her things are not worth addressing, it is that I think these are things that should usually be addressed at the state level, not by the President.

 

The president is there to enforce law and uphold the constitution and oversee government, since the very job exists from and is defined by the constitution.

 

Her stuff isn't about the COUNTRY; it's about your-special-interest-niche-that-wants-money-and-rights within it. And they might be good things, but they can't compete with the critical stuff at nation-level.

 

Even if you analogy it down to the "household" level it's clear the difference:

* One focus deals with the property, the housing, the utilities, and the resources for things like food, clothing, etc.

* Another focus deals with spending the money for clothes/food, and making sure the kids each have what they need individually because Suzi is very shy and Johnny has special needs or whatever.

 

I see federal government as the first, and the rest more an issue of state and inner-state governance.

 

And meanwhile, the left keeps referring to "nationalism" as if caring about your COUNTRY is a moral offense. As if, "Should you be proud of your country, you must be a nazi. Enlightened people are about "individuals" more than country. Please refer to our top platform issues such as transgender bathroom rights." or whatever...

 

You can only win a vote on that kind of platform with so many people. You alienate more than you win with that, even for people who genuinely do care about things like gay rights. They're important. But as issues of the president they're not AS important as the constitution, government corruption, or economy.

 

HRC wants to improve the economy by raising taxes on business and the less-poor. How this then competes with the yet-more-handouts clearly on her list is unknown.

 

DJT wants to improve the economy by improving trade and currency relations, bringing jobs back from offshore, and opening jobs internally from infrastructure projects that need doing anyway.

 

I see HRC's route as just the spiral to ever more socialism with ever fewer people paying for it. She's like the old joke about the wife who keeps writing checks regardless of the fact that her husband's money ran out already. ("But I still have checks!")

 

She cannot even acknowledge muslim terrorism before insisting we bring lots of them in free, above everyone else in line for immigration; she cannot even acknowledge the exorbitant numbers of illegals and related issues; but she can insist law-abiding citizens should give up firearms for self-defense (after just stoking the fires of feeling like one may NEED it), and then refer a major issue, top-level of campaign, as racial "justice" whatever that is, just adding to the instant "you're a racist if you care about things like terrorism, security or illegal immigration, and everyone should pay for how victimized non-whites feel" response that has created a knee-jerk level of "oh fuck off!" nationwide IMO.

 

RC

Edited November 14, 2016 by redcairo

[dust]

What will you say ? That Trump shouldn't have won, that he won fraudulently, that Clinton was cheated ? I'm saying to you that there is no point imagining a re-running of the election, it's been and gone and you need to accept the result of it.

 

I'll say, for example, what you have suggested I should shut up about already: that Trump is a reckless, nasty, ignorant man, a habitual liar, and that continued insistence otherwise is silly.

(And I'll say many other things, I'm sure.)

 

I've never insinuated that he cheated, and I haven't said that I don't accept the result. He was the one going on about cheating, saying Clinton had it rigged. That was, apparently, all bullshit... but it's all forgotten now! Cos Trump's great! (so say the Trump supporters)

 

I've simply said that I don't understand how some people continue to be duped by his nonsense, not seeing that he's a pathological liar and thinking he might have any idea what he's doing. It is insane.

 

 

In what context are people 'living better than before' ? Tell that to the blacks living in ghettoes that are parading around with BLM flags, talk to the college graduates who can't get a good job or leave their parents basement, talk to the people that lost a well paying manual job in construction or engineering and are having to manage a couple of low paying part time jobs, tell it to the pensioners who have seen their savings destroyed by low interest rates and have had to return to the labour market to make ends meet, look at the decaying cities with broken factories, split families, crumbling roads and increased crime.

 

America has seen very little progress and where it has occured it has been amongst the wealthy and corrupt. It's now harder to find a job, buy a house, get healthcare, get a cheap car, heat the house, or start a business. America is decaying morally and materially. 8 years of Obama and Hillary have resulted in stagnating economy and food banks for millions. It is no wonder that 'make America great again' was such a rallying cry.

 

Almost none of this last list is true. Employment is up, better healthcare coverage, improving energy tech, startups are huge, etc.

 

As far as black ghettos... would it be better to go back to the crack '80s? The segregated '20s? The enslaved centuries before? How are Western black lives worse now?? Not perfect, not fluffy rainbows, but improving.

 

I'm one of these low-paying job people. Just because I haven't got a fun or well-paying job doesn't mean I must pretend that life sucks. The fact that I have such a job and continue to live in relative comfort is astonishing. Life can be great for most people, with some perspective, some are just too ignorant to recognize. Send them back to 18th Century England and see how much everyone likes that. Life is better now.

 

And increased crime? It continues to annoy me that you ignore everything I write and continue to make false claims about things I've given evidence for numerous times. Crime is decreasing, USA and UK.

 

Here's one graph just for fun.

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by dust

[ralis]

Well if you tune out all the accusations and all the noise -- turn off the sound and back off for a bigger picture -- you're left with "the official platform issues" of both parties.

 

The news media was so busy going on about how horrible Trump was for saying X, they rather failed to spend much time talking seriously about HRC's issues were. If you'd like to see them, her presentation on her website is here:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

But you have to go to the site, and click about 40 times, to see. It basically requires someone already be obsessively interested in her to even get half a clue of what she might stand for.

 

If you'd like to see DJT's issues, his presentation on his website is here:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/contract/

The page itself has a 1-click simple overview, which you can save (as it's a PDF) and email to anyone, and a "contract" -- a "deal" to 'sign' which is also an email signup if you like.

 

Here's another example, even in the websites, of difference: the website browser title and search engine meta title "title" and metadata:

of HRC's site: "Hillary Clinton 2016."

of DJT's site: "Make America Great Again." 

 

Then you get to the actual issues.

 

DJT's top focus points (he narrowed it down to 3 top-level categories, then 'the rest'):

Ending corruption in government; enforcing constitutional law; economy and jobs.

 

HRC's top focus points (which appear to be 40 separate issues, so no higher grouping):

LGBT rights, disability right, racial justice (?!), addiction and substance abuse help; making sure people with money pay higher taxes.

 

Even farther down the list on broader topics, HRC's are generic and sound like they got added as an afterthought or less-important trivia (like "rural communities" and "small business" -- as titles, those suck, they don't say anything, nor do the blurbs even, and you'd have to click to go into the detail of whatever might be planned). It's obvious what is important to her. The whole presentation online is almost in-a-nutshell meta-level example.

 

And don't get me wrong, it is not that I think some of her things are not worth addressing, it is that I think these are things that should usually be addressed at the state level, not by the President. The president is there to enforce law and uphold the constitution and oversee government, since the very job exists from and is defined by the constitution. Her stuff isn't about the COUNTRY; it's about your-special-interest-niche-that-wants-money-and-rights within it. And they might be good things, but they really just can't compete with the critical stuff at nation-level.

 

Even if you analogy it down to the "household" level it's clear the difference:

One focus deals with the property, the housing, the utilities, and the resources for things like food, clothing, etc.

Another focus deals with spending the money for clothes/food, and making sure the kids each have what they need individually because Suzi is very shy and Johnny has special needs or whatever.

 

I see federal government as the first, and the rest more an issue of state and inner-state governance.

 

And meanwhile, the left keeps referring to "nationalism" as if caring about your COUNTRY is a moral offense. As if, "Should you be proud of your country, you must be a nazi. Enlightened people are about "individuals" more than country. Please refer to our top platform issues such as transgender bathroom rights." or whatever... you can only win a vote on that kind of platform with so many people. You alienate more than you win with that, even for people who genuinely do care about things like gay rights. They're important. But as issues of the president they're not AS important as the constitution, government corruption, or economy.

 

HRC wants to improve the economy by raising taxes on business and the less-poor. How this then competes with the yet-more-handouts clearly on her list is unknown. DJT wants to improve the economy by improving trade and currency relations, bringing jobs back from offshore, and opening jobs internally from infrastructure projects that need doing anyway. I see HRC's route as just the spiral to ever more socialism with ever fewer people paying for it. She's like the wife who keeps writing checks regardless of the fact that her husband's money ran out already. ("But I still have checks!")

 

She cannot even acknowledge muslim terrorism before insisting we bring lots of them in free, above everyone else in line for immigration; she cannot even acknowledge the exorbitant numbers of illegals and related issues; but she can insist law-abiding citizens should give up firearms for self-defense (after just stoking the fires of feeling like one may NEED it), and then refer a major issue, top-level of campaign, as racial "justice" whatever that is, just adding to the instant "you're a racist if you care about things like terrorism, security or illegal immigration, and everyone should pay for how victimized non-whites feel" response that has created a knee-jerk level of "oh fuck off!" nationwide IMO.

 

RC

 

 

I don't have time to thoroughly respond to all your lengthy posts. However, nationalism is a very dangerous slope to be on.

 

I have studied history and human behavior in the context of. I see this insane drama in an historical framework, in that the human primate repeats certain behaviors with any number of given stress points and the consequences are similar throughout recorded history.

 

Trump choosing Pence who is on record as being a bigot is ludicrous. What does that message send to an already divided country?

Edited November 14, 2016 by ralis

[redcairo]

I agree with you Ralis. Many of the craziest things ever done were done "with the support of" nationalism behind them (e.g. the offensive armies of the German and Japanese in WWII).

 

That doesn't make nationalism itself a bad thing -- the same emotion and politic has also done exceptional things for many countries including ours as it has developed.

 

It simply means that emotion and determination together are important even in a person let alone a whole nation. With that behind you, a leader can often accomplish most anything.

 

Sometimes leaders choose to accomplish lousy things. Sometimes they don't. Some start wars, some go to the moon. That doesn't make the dynamic that supports both of those a bad thing. It's just a thing, like fire; it can be used in many ways.

 

RC

[ralis]

I agree with you Ralis. Many of the craziest things ever done were done "with the support of" nationalism behind them (e.g. the offensive armies of the German and Japanese in WWII).

 

That doesn't make nationalism itself a bad thing -- the same emotion and politic has also done exceptional things for many countries including ours as it has developed.

 

It simply means that emotion and determination together are important even in a person let alone a whole nation. With that behind you, a leader can often accomplish most anything.

 

Sometimes leaders choose to accomplish lousy things. Sometimes they don't. Some start wars, some go to the moon. That doesn't make the dynamic that supports both of those a bad thing. It's just a thing, like fire; it can be used in many ways.

 

RC

 

 

Nationalism can collapse on itself and further divide which is what I see happening. I see the appointment of Steve Bannon as a major problem in that Trump is moving further to the right.

[redcairo]

> Employment is up, better healthcare coverage, improving energy tech, startups are huge, etc.

Perhaps when that 'trickles down' to seeming like a reality to more people, it might help. For now, it's mostly numbers and pictures that don't mean much to people who aren't seeing it in their lives. The number of jobs lost in this country in the last 40 years is absolutely *staggering.* This is not something just conservatives say. Bernie Sanders has been at the front of that issue for decades too.

 

> Crime is decreasing, USA and UK.

Fab -- you never see those stats when the left is insisting we must seize all firearms from law-abiding citizens. :-)

 

Also, on employment, it went down dramatically with the recessing, but more dramatically the lower the 'edu rate' of the job associated. It came up a lot for the 4-year degree level; moderately for the 2-year degree level; barely for the high-school edu level -- which is still utterly in the dirt even with official statistics as far as jobs are concerned. (I only know this because yesterday, for one of the 100 day plan threads, I was looking at jobs stats online.) So that's an example of different sectors of the population likely having reason to see things differently.

 

RC

 

[redcairo]

Nationalism can collapse on itself and further divide which is what I see happening. I see the appointment of Steve Bannon as a major problem in that Trump is moving further to the right.

 

I suspect he is appointing people he trusts to be loyal to his vision, which may be more about the humans and his relationship with them, than their voting record.

 

It's going to go right, partly because they hold everything this cycle, and greatly because the left keeps getting more extreme, which drives the right more extreme, which drives the left more extreme, and it's a horrible cycle.

 

Obviously, people like Soros paying to fund every imaginable "divisive anger protest" effort and then have it covered ad nauseum in the media doesn't help much either.  Trump's own lunatic comments through half the campaign didn't help at all either.

 

But in the end, if Trump weren't in the chair, someone vastly more conservative would be. One can mourn that the republicans hold the power right now. But he is the most liberal republican in a very long time.

 

What can you do. It always sucks when one side holds everything because for once, something gets accomplished, and it's usually something on that side.

 

RC

 

PS You'll be delighted to know I have to get back to working for a living now. Back tonight. :-)

Edited November 14, 2016 by redcairo

[Karl]

I'll say, for example, what you have suggested I should shut up about already: that Trump is a reckless, nasty, ignorant man, a habitual liar, and that continued insistence otherwise is silly.

(And I'll say many other things, I'm sure.)

 

I've never insinuated that he cheated, and I haven't said that I don't accept the result. He was the one going on about cheating, saying Clinton had it rigged. That was, apparently, all bullshit... but it's all forgotten now! Cos Trump's great! (so say the Trump supporters)

 

I've simply said that I don't understand how some people continue to be duped by his nonsense, not seeing that he's a pathological liar and thinking he might have any idea what he's doing. It is insane.

 

 

 

Almost none of this last list is true. Employment is up, better healthcare coverage, improving energy tech, startups are huge, etc.

 

As far as black ghettos... would it be better to go back to the crack '80s? The segregated '20s? The enslaved centuries before? How are Western black lives worse now?? Not perfect, not fluffy rainbows, but improving.

 

I'm one of these low-paying job people. Just because I haven't got a fun or well-paying job doesn't mean I must pretend that life sucks. The fact that I have such a job and continue to live in relative comfort is astonishing. Life can be great for most people, with some perspective, some are just too ignorant to recognize. Send them back to 18th Century England and see how much everyone likes that. Life is better now.

 

And increased crime? It continues to annoy me that you ignore everything I write and continue to berate me over things I've given evidence for numerous times. Crime is decreasing, USA and UK.

 

Here's one graph just for fun.

 

 

You are being blindsided by the system that tells you this is how it is. The polls should have confirmed this for you. The fact Trump was elected when everything was going so brilliantly should confirm that this is total bollocks. You can now be assured that the Government, it's staticians and media are lying to you. The USA is 20 trillion in debt and productivity is falling and inflation rising. Why do you think the Fed keeps jawboning about interest rate rises but does nothing except a tiny 25 basis points last December. If the economy was doing so well, then how come the interest rates aren't back to normal ? Come on dude start thinking, you are being conned. All those tech start ups are the results of low cost money subsidies, they are phantoms which will evaporate when the money stops flowing.

 

The blacks were doing fine in the 50s they weren't shooting themselves to death, they had very strong family units a great work ethic and firm moral values. I don't know where you have been living, but do some research, find out, see what lies have been poured into your head.

 

I'm not sure people are duped by Trump, I think they see him as 'not Hillary' as a change from the crap they have put up with under Obama/Bush/Clinton. If they had voted Clinton then they would have been equally duped by a corrupt woman who thinks she is entitled to be president because she has a vagina. I'm not going to list the horrors that are the Clintons and their pizza/spirit cooking friends that indulge in ritual cannibalism activities, child porn, rape and who knows what else.

[ralis]

As most of you know, I live in Santa Fe NM which is a multicultural city. Anglo, Hispanic, Native American, African American and so forth. Everyone here for the most part lives in multicultural neighborhoods, except for the extremely wealthy who live behind walls and gated communities on the East side.

 

Given the above, will Trump send his storm troopers through every house and neighborhood with his xenophobic madness? Search every house which is a violation of our rights? A knock on my door in the middle of the night? Will he use the NDAA to justify this?

 

Colorado, NM, Arizona, California and Nevada are all multicultural.

[ralis]

Addendum,

 

All persons in this country regardless of immigration status or other wise, have rights under the law. Therefor, due process overrides! The courts can be tied up for decades on these matters.

[Karl]

As most of you know, I live in Santa Fe NM which is a multicultural city. Anglo, Hispanic, Native American, African American and so forth. Everyone here for the most part lives in multicultural neighborhoods, except for the extremely wealthy who live behind walls and gated communities on the East side.

 

Given the above, will Trump send his storm troopers through every house and neighborhood with his xenophobic madness? Search every house which is a violation of our rights? A knock on my door in the middle of the night? Will he use the NDAA to justify this?

 

Colorado, NM, Arizona, California and Nevada are all multicultural.

You realise Obama has kicked out 3 million criminal illegal immigrants ? Trump isn't promising anything different except a wall, which he now says will be partly a fence-which it is now.

 

However, I do wonder if he will continue to allow the Soros funded anti-Trump league continue their violence on streets and campuses across the USA. I expect that there will be a short hiatus to allow the violence to cease, followed by a Police clampdown and an FBI investigation of the organisations involved.

 

https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics

 

 

Sent from my iPad

Edited November 14, 2016 by Karl

[blackstar212]

As most of you know, I live in Santa Fe NM which is a multicultural city. Anglo, Hispanic, Native American, African American and so forth. Everyone here for the most part lives in multicultural neighborhoods, except for the extremely wealthy who live behind walls and gated communities on the East side.

 

Given the above, will Trump send his storm troopers through every house and neighborhood with his xenophobic madness? Search every house which is a violation of our rights? A knock on my door in the middle of the night? Will he use the NDAA to justify this?

 

Colorado, NM, Arizona, California and Nevada are all multicultural.

I doubt. Trump duped and conned his supporters.

 

The only way he gets all these immigrants is to send out the stormtroopers. He will not do that.

[ralis]

You realise Obama has kicked out 3 million illegal immigrants ? Trump isn't promising anything different except a wall, which he now says will be partly a fence-which it is now.

 

However, I do wonder if he will continue to allow the Soros funded anti-Trump league continue their violence on streets and campuses across the USA. I expect that there will be a short hiatus to allow the violence to cease, followed by a Police clampdown and an FBI investigation of the organisations involved.

 

I don't know the status on those, but the law is quite clear. Moreover, many of those may have been caught crossing the border and sent back. Details are difficult to come by. However, there must be due process!

[ralis]

I doubt. Trump duped and conned his supporters.

 

The only way he gets all these immigrants is to send out the stormtroopers. He will not do that.

 

I hope you are right.

[Karl]

I doubt. Trump duped and conned his supporters.

 

The only way he gets all these immigrants is to send out the stormtroopers. He will not do that.

He was only interested in the rapists, robbers and criminals anyway as I understood it. He was building the wall to prevent any further uncontrolled immigration. It's the same as the Muslims. Out of context it sounded like he was preparing to expel all Muslims, but he was talking about stopping Muslims coming in until they had 'figured out what the hell is going on'.

[Karl]

I don't know the status on those, but the law is quite clear. Moreover, many of those may have been caught crossing the border and sent back. Details are difficult to come by. However, there must be due process!

I provided a link.

[ralis]

He was only interested in the rapists, robbers and criminals anyway as I understood it. He was building the wall to prevent any further uncontrolled immigration. It's the same as the Muslims. Out of context it sounded like he was preparing to expel all Muslims, but he was talking about stopping Muslims coming in until they had 'figured out what the hell is going on'.

 

 

You realise Obama has kicked out 3 million criminal illegal immigrants ? Trump isn't promising anything different except a wall, which he now says will be partly a fence-which it is now.

 

However, I do wonder if he will continue to allow the Soros funded anti-Trump league continue their violence on streets and campuses across the USA. I expect that there will be a short hiatus to allow the violence to cease, followed by a Police clampdown and an FBI investigation of the organisations involved.

 

https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics

 

 

Sent from my iPad

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/

[Karl]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/

There is a correction at the bottom of the article if you made it that far.

Funny that the WaPo should be doubting statistics, ironic in fact. ;-)

[blackstar212]

http://time.com/4569588/donald-trump-stephen-bannon-breitbart-white-house/

 

A managing director at Goldman Sachs??? HMMMM LMAO. Lets go globalists!!!

 

 

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/07/21/last-night-the-gop-rejected-the-new-world-order/

[Wells]

.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Wells