Trump to win?

[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?

..... 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

[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?

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.

[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 ?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Woodsman]

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.

[bpr]

Re: Trump to win?

Well, that 80-pages of the most sensitive remarks that needed to be "scrubbed" in Hillary's speeches just landed like a giant campaign ad. Yawn. This is a perfect example of micromanaging a molehill until it becomes a mountain.

[Ellen Z]

Re: Trump to win?

Lot's of examples of things Trump could do. But do you think he will? Does he even have any interest in that? Does the president have the power to make those things happen?

That was a list of things that would "get" Hillary. They would lead to a lot of newspaper headlines and Sunday morning talk shows, but I don't see how they would particularly help the Trump supporter who was interviewed by David Hill. She said:

Then there was a domino effect. She couldn’t pay for her lawn-care equipment leases and loans. That hurt her work efficiency. Then, she lost her car. But that didn’t stop the payments. Then, she lost her house. She slowly had to let go all of her employees, until it was just her, hand-mowing lawns for cash the way you might expect a high school student in the summertime. She told me that every week, it seemed there was another default letter, another foreclosure, another bank demanding more blood from her dry veins.

To my mind, that's 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.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

i, too, oppose trump but i do think there is a "trump phenomenon." it is the rebellion of those who have lost out from globalization, technological advancement and cultural change.

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. Like the Nativists of the 19^th Century, this is the core group supporting Trump. To call it the Trump phenomenon is to completely misunderstand the history of the US.

there are certainly those among trump supporters who imo are motivated by racial animus. but i have some sympathy for those who have been trashed by the changes our country has undergone.

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.

and i think it is to our shame that globalization was sold as an unalloyed good while all its benefits went to the upper few percent, and all its costs were paid by those in the lowest socio-economic strata.

The costs may be paid by the ‘lowest socio-economic strata’ in the US but for the most part, those folks in the US are not white. Almost all Trump voters are white and are not in the ‘lowest socio-economic strata’. You can’t conflate economic position with Trump voters. Also, globalization did not only benefit the top, it benefited a billion or more people at the bottom and brought them up above subsistence. This is a very complex issue and one we should likely discuss on another thread but competition sucks if you’re privileged.

It is not OK to be complicit, an accomplice in the take down of the US system. Trump is the greatest threat since Goldwater and before that the Confederate states. I give no quarter to Trump supporters. To me they are the Goldwater fascists and the Civil War south. As I’ve said before we don’t need to beat them, we need to destroy them so we can move forward.

[LazyBoy]

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.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

but 'do differently' ???
thats easy:

he could start with a VERY PUBLIC executive order to demand an IRS audit of the clinton 'charitable' foundation (vs the 'backdoor' weasel tactics that lois lerner& co used to go after the teaparty types)

along with an immediate investigation of the FBI's decision to NOT prosecute hitlery

which, i suspect - is precisely what 'they' are afraid of....

never mind this:



or HEY!
how about this?



or maybe this:



this 'might be interesing'



and 'they' dont EVEN wanna have him start looking into this:

Lot's of examples of things Trump could do. But do you think he will? Does he even have any interest in that? Does the president have the power to make those things happen?