Trump to win?

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

i am not at all fine with it. i hate the fact that clinton and trump are the choices our system has generated. i hate the system that produced them. i think clinton will continue to reinforce everything i hate [except perhaps in appointing judges that i would prefer to those whom trump would appoint].

i understand and share woodsman's desire to shatter this system, but i'm not convinced trump would do that given the ways he's tacked since getting the nomination. i also think trump is dangerous in a deeper way. he might indeed change the system, it's possible, but i am far from convinced he'd change it for the better. and if he just caused political chaos i'm concerned about what would come out the other side.

"things fall apart/the center cannot hold" and so on, leads to "what rough beast... slouches towards bethlehem to be born."

I've been uncomfortable with others lumping you in with my position. We have very different points of view. I get why this group of iTulipers don't like me, I despise their position, but I can't rationalize why your thoughtful comments would be dropped in the same bucket.

These Trump supporters are the progeny of the same racists that barred the door to integrated education 50 years ago. They've learned to use politically correct language, but it only makes them more despicable to me. The US party system isn't perfect but it's the system we have so we better support it.

It's a system, of the people, by the people and for the people. If we don't acknowledge our responsibility for the current state of the system, we're no different than every Trump supporter or Libertarians driving on public roads and not getting the irony. HRC is a product of, by and for the people. If we want more from her we need to work much harder for it. I do not hate our choices, I accept that we’ve not worked very hard recently to make our choices better.

Where we really disagree is on HRC, I don't dislike Clinton. I get her as a classic American politician, (two wolves and a lamb discussing what they'll have for lunch). Our politicians want to get elected and re-elected. They look to their constituents to drive their policies. Their constituents have not worked very hard to move them in the right direction.

There is a lot of nonsense surrounding this election but in one way politicians are like real estate, there are 3 rules: Policy, policy, policy, (for real estate it's location). I get her policy on race, the unconscionable level of imprisonment, US infrastructure, the environment and the Supreme Court. Her base set of policies is one I can support. It's that simple. For me, it's really non emotional. It comes from decades of business training. When you have a problem that seems insurmountable, the last thing you do is freak out. You define the problem as clearly as possible and you solicit solutions from your team. You make a decision and you move forward. It doesn't always work the way you intended but you have to make a decision and move forward.

This is what I'm doing. I'm working and donating to get her elected and I will continue to work after the election to move her in the right direction. I'd like it if she took many of Sanders policies seriously but it won't happen unless we push her in that direction.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Assange says he will bring down Clinton before the first debate:

http://www.usasupreme.com/assange-i-...eptember-26th/

And the KKK likes Hillary too!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...llary-clinton/

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

must say folks, that this thread has been one of THE Best eye've seen (and/or been ignored on) in all my years here on the tulip.

and woody has done a FABULOUS job of outing the twisted-pretzel logic of the defenders of the status quo here that seem a bit too quick on the draw to interpret every statement from anybody who disagrees with ANY challenge to the status quo as being "..racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic.." along with all the rest of the (psychobabble) $10 words the 'social justice warriors' puke out in the LAMERSTREAM MEDIA on a daily basis.

the only thing funnier than watching as HITLERY spins her head 360deg around on her shoulders, while hurling green vomit (ala linda blair in the exorcist) - as her 'champions' (lyin, weasel bastards) in the media and social justice crowd all rally round THE MOST CORRUPT, INEPT, BOUGHT-OFF POLITICIAN OF THE LAST 100YEARS ?
(uhhh... i mean, next to the 2nd most corrupt, inept, bought-off, lyin, weasel bastard current occupant, who's wife even outed herself (themselves) during the demorat convention as surely racist as the KKK, with her statement that 'she wakes up every day in a house built by slaves' ??? and nobody in the social justice crowd has a GD thing to say about it??
Riiiight....)

would be watching her defenders here 'justify' their positions based upon their own spin-their-heads-360deg stance.

and i think woody = winning.

GO WOODY GO !!!!

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Go to youtube and watch Trump interviews from years back, from before he threw his hat into the ring. You'll see a very different Trump. He was intelligent, calm, thoughtful. I still think (hope) that the way he presented himself and the things he said in those interviews is the "real" Trump.

he's said everything on both sides of most issues. witness his recent pirouette on immigration reform. everyone takes what they like and thinks [hopes] THAT is the "real" trump. he's good at that game.

the firestorm he got from the right when he tried to soften his immigration stance, and his quick backtrack on the issue, coupled with his list of supreme court candidates, his enrich-the-rich tax plan, and his need for congressional support, all make me think that if elected [and thus likely hold both chambers of congress for the gop] he'd implement the standard republican agenda. and that's the "safe", non radical scenario. more radically he'd undermine free speech, appoint judges who would squeeze voting rights, further strengthen the state surveillance apparatus and be over-reactive internationally.

[of course, hillary is likely to be over-reactive internationally. at least that is her history.]

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

that's not ALL we really know. importantly we also have the information of trump's own behavior - his decisions, his speeches, his tweets, and his behavior as a businessman. that's a lot of information to add to the fact that the oligarchs oppose him.

Go to youtube and watch Trump interviews from years back, from before he threw his hat into the ring. You'll see a very different Trump. He was intelligent, calm, thoughtful. I still think (hope) that the way he presented himself and the things he said in those interviews is the "real" Trump.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

What's crazy to me is this idea that it is inevitable that if we choose something different the only possible outcome is something bad.

i don't think anything is inevitable. or if something is inevitable i am unable to discern it. i'm left with subjective probabilities.

Why is it fated that we would end up worse? Why is it guaranteed that there is no other outcome, even a neutral or mixed one?

it's not fated and it's not guaranteed, imo.

All we really know about Trump is that the oligarchs are violently opposed to him.

that's not ALL we really know. importantly we also have the information of trump's own behavior - his decisions, his speeches, his tweets, and his behavior as a businessman. that's a lot of information to add to the fact that the oligarchs oppose him.

The ruling elites and their puppets are genuinely concerned about Trump’s challenge to their control and they have united against Trump.

agreed

This is an easy one, people.

unfortunately it's not easy for me, nor for others who dislike the status quo but remain wary of trump. i wish i shared your certainty.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

I'm not at all convinced that Trump would shatter the system. Even if he wanted to, how could he? And I agree that it's more likely than not we would end up worse on the other side.

I suppose it's a sort of prisoner's dilemma. The wannabe 3rd party voters are afraid to vote their conscience unless they can be assured the people who lean towards the other half of the two party system will do the same. We're trapped in a prison we created for ourselves and guarded only by the bogeyman of the "greater evil" winning.

The "system" is really just your actions on a large scale. You say you want to shatter it, but then you go into the voting booth and take the one action necessary to ensure its survival.

You remain trapped in the prisoner's dilemma so long as you accept your opponent's premise that you have nothing to gain by changing your strategy. Once you change it, then the game dissolves and a new game is afoot. And the best solution to the prisoner's dilemma is cooperation so this should explain with sufficient clarity why people who support Clinton are abandoning all decency in a no-holds-barred attempt to dehumanize their political opponents and keep people divided.

It explains why it is critical for the neoliberal and neconservative elites running the two parties that Trump supporters be made anathema. If Trumpsters are made totally depraved then no person who considers themselves virtuous can recognize in them any common interest or humanity and the game continues. Once common interests are recognized, cooperation can begin, defections begin and the game unravels. For HRC to win, Trump supporters must be made subhuman.

Such games are created by mad men for insane ends. So why keep playing?

What's crazy to me is this idea that it is inevitable that if we choose something different the only possible outcome is something bad. Why is it fated that we would end up worse? Why is it guaranteed that there is no other outcome, even a neutral or mixed one?

All we really know about Trump is that the oligarchs are violently opposed to him. The ruling elites and their puppets are genuinely concerned about Trump’s challenge to their control and they have united against Trump. They have used their money to buy up “progressive” websites paid to bring the print and TV anti-Trump propaganda onto the Internet, thus joining the print, TV, and NPR whores who are working overtime to demonize Trump's supporters and to elect Hillary.

The entire power structure of our country is behind Hillary. Both Democratic and Republican political establishments and both ideologies, neoliberals and neoconservatives, are united behind Hillary. The Nash Equilibrium between the GOP and Democratic elites broke once Trump became the nominee. The NY/Washington/LA axis recognized that Trump ended their game and so created a new game that requires their cooperation to defeat you. You are the enemy of their status quo.

I think we can break the Nash Equilibrium by doing something different. That starts by rejecting people who would pit us against each other by race, by rejecting people who are trying to make us afraid of each other, and by doing what Americans always do in the face of uncertainty - come together, show courage, apply their ingenuity and get to work fixing the problem. We'll never fix it by doing the same thing we did before.

This is an easy one, people.

[DSpencer]

Re: Trump to win?

i am not at all fine with it. i hate the fact that clinton and trump are the choices our system has generated. i hate the system that produced them. i think clinton will continue to reinforce everything i hate [except perhaps in appointing judges that i would prefer to those whom trump would appoint].

i understand and share woodsman's desire to shatter this system, but i'm not convinced trump would do that given the ways he's tacked since getting the nomination. i also think trump is dangerous in a deeper way. he might indeed change the system, it's possible, but i am far from convinced he'd change it for the better. and if he just caused political chaos i'm concerned about what would come out the other side.

"things fall apart/the center cannot hold" and so on, leads to "what rough beast... slouches towards bethlehem to be born."

I'm not at all convinced that Trump would shatter the system. Even if he wanted to, how could he? And I agree that it's more likely than not we would end up worse on the other side.

I suppose it's a sort of prisoner's dilemma. The wannabe 3rd party voters are afraid to vote their conscience unless they can be assured the people who lean towards the other half of the two party system will do the same. We're trapped in a prison we created for ourselves and guarded only by the bogeyman of the "greater evil" winning.

The "system" is really just your actions on a large scale. You say you want to shatter it, but then you go into the voting booth and take the one action necessary to ensure its survival.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

But you are fine to vote for someone who authorized the Iraq War? Someone who seems to be the favorite of military contractors over the alleged warmonger?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...clinton-227336

I'm not trying to continue the personal attacks that are all over this thread. I really just don't understand it. How can you have the "Socialism for the rich! Capitalism for the rest" signature and cast your vote for a candidate who gets paid $225,000 to chat with LLoyd Blankfein and Co.? And she won't release the transcript of what was said? Even if she did release the transcript, we all know what is going on. She gets paid ludicrous fees to buy her loyalty.

Everyone I talk to that says they might vote for Hillary always says the same thing: "It's because of Trump! He's crazy, racist, dangerous, unpredictable, etc. If the Republicans had nominated someone else things would be different!" Personally, I think it's all rationalization. If it was Romney, McCain, Cruz, Kasich, or Ryan they would all find some justification for voting for Hillary all the same. It's the same on the other side too. "I don't like Trump, but if Hillary wins then..."

Most "independents" are only independent in between the 4 years where they reliably vote for the same party they always do.

i am not at all fine with it. i hate the fact that clinton and trump are the choices our system has generated. i hate the system that produced them. i think clinton will continue to reinforce everything i hate [except perhaps in appointing judges that i would prefer to those whom trump would appoint].

i understand and share woodsman's desire to shatter this system, but i'm not convinced trump would do that given the ways he's tacked since getting the nomination. i also think trump is dangerous in a deeper way. he might indeed change the system, it's possible, but i am far from convinced he'd change it for the better. and if he just caused political chaos i'm concerned about what would come out the other side.

"things fall apart/the center cannot hold" and so on, leads to "what rough beast... slouches towards bethlehem to be born."

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Thank you, DSpencer. You're speaking my thoughts exactly, only I'm not articulate enough to say it as well as you did.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Shelby Foote is looking down from a high mountain, and Grant is actually down there in it. Shelby Foote wasn't there. Neither were any of those guys who fight Civil War re-enactments. Grant was there, but he was off leading his army. He only wrote about it all once it was over. If you want to know what it was about, read the daily newspapers from that time from both the North and South. You'll see things that you won't believe. There is just too much to go into here, but it's nothing like what you read in the history books. It's way more deadly and hateful.

There doesn't seem to be anything heroic or honorable about it at all. It was suicidal. Four years of looting and plunder and murder done the American way. It's amazing what you see in those newspaper articles. Places like the Pittsburgh Gazette, where they were warning workers that if the Southern states have their way, they are going to overthrow our factories and use slave labor in place of our workers and put an end to our way of life. There's all kinds of stuff like that, and that's even before the first shot was fired.

The North just wanted them to stop slavery, not even put an end to it – just stop exporting it. They weren't trying to take the slaves away. They just wanted to keep slavery from spreading. That's the only right that was being contested. Slavery didn't provide a working wage for people. If that economic system was allowed to spread, then people in the North were going to take up arms. There was a lot of fear about slavery spreading.

The United States burned and destroyed itself for the sake of slavery. The USA wouldn't give it up. It had to be grinded out. The whole system had to be ripped out with force. A lot of killing. What, like, 500,000 people? A lot of destruction to end slavery. And that's what it really was all about.

This country is just too fucked up about color. It's a distraction. People at each other's throats just because they are of a different color. It's the height of insanity, and it will hold any nation back – or any neighborhood back. Or any anything back. Blacks know that some whites didn't want to give up slavery – that if they had their way, they would still be under the yoke, and they can't pretend they don't know that. If you got a slave master or Klan in your blood, blacks can sense that. That stuff lingers to this day.
It's doubtful that America's ever going to get rid of that stigmatization. It's a country founded on the backs of slaves. You know what I mean? Because it goes way back. It's the root cause.

Bob Dylan

Gonna have to disagree with Dylan on this point. Sweeping generalizations are a handy tool of propaganda. My great-great grandparents in Scott, Louisana* owned slaves. After they freed them, most of them returned within the year and asked for their old jobs and homes back. My gg grandparents didn't have much in the way of cash to pay them, but they provided housing, food (room and board in today's lingo) and medical care. Am I justifying slavery? No! Am I responsible for the fact that my ancestors owned slaves? No!

Now before someone slams me for the sins of my fathers (and mothers), I'm also part black, but none of these facts define me! The actions of my ancestors don't make me what and who I am today. The choices I have made, the things I have endured, survived, accomplished and learned in my own lifetime are the things that make me what I am. Anyone who is so obsessed with race that they would categorize me as either a victimizer or victim because of things that happened 150 years ago is using labels as a substitute for thinking; using their "cause" as a convenient hook upon which to hang their resentments.

*Scott, Louisana is a hub town of Lafayette. Like most of the whites in the Deep South until recent years, the whites in Scott believed in segregation. But they also believed in education for both blacks and whites. Before they built a school for their own children, the whites in Scott pooled their money to build a school for the black children of the community. They organized horse-drawn wagons to collect the children from their far away farms, drive them into town every day for school, and return them home after school. This is considered to be the first organized school bus system in the country.

[DSpencer]

Re: Trump to win?

i get hung up on whether if ralph nader hadn't run, president gore would have invaded iraq.

But you are fine to vote for someone who authorized the Iraq War? Someone who seems to be the favorite of military contractors over the alleged warmonger?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...clinton-227336

I'm not trying to continue the personal attacks that are all over this thread. I really just don't understand it. How can you have the "Socialism for the rich! Capitalism for the rest" signature and cast your vote for a candidate who gets paid $225,000 to chat with LLoyd Blankfein and Co.? And she won't release the transcript of what was said? Even if she did release the transcript, we all know what is going on. She gets paid ludicrous fees to buy her loyalty.

Everyone I talk to that says they might vote for Hillary always says the same thing: "It's because of Trump! He's crazy, racist, dangerous, unpredictable, etc. If the Republicans had nominated someone else things would be different!" Personally, I think it's all rationalization. If it was Romney, McCain, Cruz, Kasich, or Ryan they would all find some justification for voting for Hillary all the same. It's the same on the other side too. "I don't like Trump, but if Hillary wins then..."

Most "independents" are only independent in between the 4 years where they reliably vote for the same party they always do.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

:
Speaking of delusional: "I'm not a fan of HRC and I understand we'll have to work hard to monitor her." That's comedy gold. If we don't want corrupt politicians, we have to not vote for them. Thinking that you can "monitor them" is a joke. She wants your vote and your money. Once she has your vote, she does not give a damn what you think or what you write on the internet. Unless you have the money to buy the laws you want, which is self-defeating if you want someone who isn't corrupt.

I'm so tired of people claiming to dislike the person who they vote into the nation's highest office. And the pompous attitude that we should be grateful for people that elected an evil candidate because they spared us from an allegedly more evil candidate. Voting for someone you actually believe in will have far more political impact in the long term than maintaining the two party status quo.

i get hung up on whether if ralph nader hadn't run, president gore would have invaded iraq.

[DSpencer]

Re: Trump to win?

i don't recall raising race "as a club." please remind me how/when/where i did that.
also please explain how your remark about "white" was "to counter."
thanks

I won't pretend to understand Woodsman or speak for him and I think he may be unfairly lumping you and santafe2 into the same group. However, I'm guessing he's part of a group that is fed up with the "you're a racist!" smear campaign. The new culture where somehow it's not contradictory to claim to be anti-racist while simultaneously using someone's race as an insult. Look at the nonsense santafe2 is saying in this thread:

You’re a bunch of angry old white guys who no longer control the country. For that, the rest of us are thankful.

If someone said "You're a bunch of angry young black girls who don't have any power. For that, the rest of us are thankful", would they not rightfully be called out as being overtly racist? In order to avoid the cognitive dissonance that results from such an absurd contradiction people are actually trying to redefine language to make themselves not racist. This is why you're starting to hear statements like "racism is prejudice plus power". They are literally redefining racism so that it can be applied selectively.

So it's hard not to feel like we are living in a bit of 1984 scenario where 2+2 is sometimes five and racism is only racism when it suits the person making the charge.

I have sometimes criticized one issue voters but for me there is only one issue. I would like to see racism and possibly sexism subdued in my lifetime. Black folks are 91% for HRC and 1% for Trump. I'm voting with the black community. I'm not a fan of HRC and I understand we'll have to work hard to monitor her but I despise Trump and every 19th Century racist platform he supports.

Black voters are aligned nearly 100:1 against Trump. Trump supporters are nearly all white. How can any other issue be more important? This is the American issue. It's one we fought to overcome 150 years ago but are really only beginning to deal with today. I'd like to not lose the ground we've gained with the current president.

I'm tired of racism too. It's mostly subjective, but I'm part of the group that doesn't feel like we have seen any improvement in race relations since Obama's election. I'm hopeful that time will change things for the better. I think my generation is less racist than past generations, but maybe I'm delusional. But if you think electing a certain politician can magically change racists into non-racists, you're delusional.

Speaking of delusional: "I'm not a fan of HRC and I understand we'll have to work hard to monitor her." That's comedy gold. If we don't want corrupt politicians, we have to not vote for them. Thinking that you can "monitor them" is a joke. She wants your vote and your money. Once she has your vote, she does not give a damn what you think or what you write on the internet. Unless you have the money to buy the laws you want, which is self-defeating if you want someone who isn't corrupt.

I'm so tired of people claiming to dislike the person who they vote into the nation's highest office. And the pompous attitude that we should be grateful for people that elected an evil candidate because they spared us from an allegedly more evil candidate. Voting for someone you actually believe in will have far more political impact in the long term than maintaining the two party status quo.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

i think all human beings assess and interpret the emotions of those they have dealings with. the only advantage of my profession is that i have more practice in not being swept up by others' emotions.

and i still don't know how i am committing doublespeak- which is to say and believe 2 opposites. i have said i consider hillary the lesser of 2 evils. no contradiction that i can see.