Donald Trump

[DrP]

Some things we can agree on though surely Raider?

 

Healthcare for all - good.

More jobs - good.

Tactical kit gloves when dealing with the time bomb in the middle east - good.

Making the country safer by targeting the main causes of death and acting - good.

education for all based on our progressing knowledge of mankind - good.

 

Ignoring the plight of the poor and giving health care only to the rich - Bad

Bulling undiplomatically and aggressively through countries across the world that have volatile political situations causing war - bad

feeding fear and hatred by building walls around the country - bad and stupid.

easy access to weapons of murder for any person who feels like killing someone today - bad

suppressing knowledge and encouragement of the teaching of false rubbish based on ancient works of fiction as fact - bad

[Ten oz]

most people want the economy to be strong, want less crime, and want low prices.

Under Obama unemployment went down, crime went down, and a lot of critical costs like fuel did go down. Trump supporters don't care about that stuff. All of that could get worse and 95% of them will vote for Trump again in 2020. It is about racism and tribalism.

[Delta1212]

At this point, we should probably start trying to invent something to clean the atmosphere because with all republican branches we aren't going to get anything done in preventing it.

 

You see, no matter who wins the other side ALWAYS! Every. Single. Time. WILL claim it was rigged. This is why I often have a hard time believing anything concerning "foul" play. Mostly because there is always foul play.

The polling thing is a bit silly. Not only is there no evidence of it, I'm not even sure what the mechanism would be and the polling was pretty consistent across the board, it was just wrong. There's no realistic way that Russia maintained an on-going hack of every major pollster and news outlet over a period of six months constantly inserting manipulated data with no one catching on. There's no plausible mechanism for that to happen.

 

However, voter suppression is another story. It's not intellectually honest to take a position of "both sides are claiming this therefore it's probably all bullshit" because it's very easy for someone do something wrong and then simply claim that the other side is doing it too even if they aren't in order to muddy the water. You have to go by the evidence.

 

And the evidence points to both in-person voter fraud of the type supposedly meant to be prevented by voter ID and "poll watchers" is exceedingly rare to the point of irrelevance

 

Meanwhile, there is ample historical and contemporary evidence through official channels that voter suppression and intimidation is an on-going concern in this country.

 

I'm not claiming that it made "the difference" in this election and that the election was stolen because I simply have no direct evidence demonstrating that to be the case, and until I do, I think the default stance should be to accept the election as legitimate even though I am unhappy about the result.

 

However, saying "he said, she said, the claims are a wash" is not a place to start when looking for the truth. Always, always look for the evidence, not just the complaints of people involved.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Delta1212

[Airbrush]

How can Trump be convinced that human-caused climate change is not a hoax? That means he never watches any science documentaries on the subject.

 

In one of the debates Clinton confronted Trump about his Tweet that it is a "hoax created by China." His response was a blatant lie, when he said "No I didn't." He should know his Tweets are permanent evidence. What does that mean? That he is doubting his own Tweet? It would suggest that he doesn't believe his own Tweet.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Airbrush

[DrP]

My guess is that he know it and doesn't care.

[Ten oz]

How can Trump be convinced that human-caused climate change is not a hoax? That means he never watches any science documentaries on the subject.

 

In one of the debates Clinton confronted Trump about his Tweet that it is a "hoax created by China." His response was a blatant lie, when he said "No I didn't." He should know his Tweets are permanent evidence. What does that mean? That he is doubting his own Tweet? It would suggest that he doesn't believe his own Tweet.

The double standard is complete. Trump was allowed to bold face lie and Hillary Clinton was accountable for everything she ever said including things she said in private.

 

Trump sourced wikileaks and directed people to read them. We know those hack were performed by Russia. That is the extent of the double standard. Trump could openly encourage foriegn entities to attack a U.S. presidential candidate and it didn't disqualify him. Now we are discussing his views on Climate Change? His view is obvious; he will do whatever he well pleases and you'll just have to deal with it.

[dimreepr]

I'm wondering what your response would be if after Donald Trumps 4 years in office, crime was low, unemployment was low, national dept was gone, there were no new wars, the war in the east was over with an American victory, and Trump decided to run for Re-election. For people who have no morals about issues concerning Abortion, homosexuality, religion, and race, I'm sure he would be elected again. Yet, I'm also sure you would still be 100% anti trump and give credit to democrats, while blaming Republicans for all the moral issues that I listed.

 

 

It depends, how many people have to suffer for this brave new world?

 

Maybe crime is low because everyone who is poor has been locked up (or eliminated in other ways) that would also solve the unemployment rates.

 

Maybe the national debt has been solved by defaulting on it, (not unknown in Trumpland).

 

Maybe a really big bomb will stop the terrorists.

 

As for the rest of this nonsense, my conscience is clear.

[waitforufo]

How can Trump be convinced that human-caused climate change is not a hoax? That means he never watches any science documentaries on the subject.

 

In one of the debates Clinton confronted Trump about his Tweet that it is a "hoax created by China." His response was a blatant lie, when he said "No I didn't." He should know his Tweets are permanent evidence. What does that mean? That he is doubting his own Tweet? It would suggest that he doesn't believe his own Tweet.

No need to worry about climate change. Trump has Myron Ebell leading the EPA transition team.

[iNow]

That's a bit like putting Jerry Sandusky in charge of child protective services. Further through the looking glass we go...

[CharonY]

The issues are not limited to climate change but also a host of other environmental issues may arise in the next four years which may take the next few hundred to address...

[rangerx]

The issues are not limited to climate change but also a host of other environmental issues may arise in the next four years which may take the next few hundred to address...

 

Totally agree. The underlying is a license to pollute.

[John Cuthber]

I'm not sure these days: is this irony?
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2016/11/11/google-wankpuffin-donald-trumps-face-top-result/

or is it a valid political comment?

[rangerx]

So, no wall, no special prosecutor, no mass deportations, Obamacare stays and NAFTA stands.

America has chosen which Manhattan liberal will run the country.

just saying...

[DrP]

If he stated that before the election then there might not have been so much hysteria. Although I am happy about there being no wall, Obama care being kept and the the deportation thing being an over exaggeration.... That isn't what he promised those who voted for him and they should be upset with him as it would mean he won their votes with meaningless lies that he thought they wanted to hear... Lets just hope that was true at least. lol.

[StringJunky]

That isn't what he promised those who voted for him and they should be upset with him as it would mean he won their votes with meaningless lies that he thought they wanted to hear... Lets just hope that was true at least. lol.

A fine example of a political chameleon if ever there was one.

[Ten oz]

A fine example of a political chameleon if ever there was one.

In my opinion it is more an example of a partisan base that doesn't actually care what happens provided they are in control. The Republican controlled house voted to repeal the ACA (Obamacare) over 50 times. Now that they will have the White House back they will just keep it because at the end of the day it is better than any alternative they actually have. Always was.

 

The ACA may end up working much better now simply because Congress won't be activily obstructing it. They will make a few superficial changes that could have been made all along had they allowed it and then claim to have fixed Obama's mess.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Ten oz

[MigL]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

Take that to mean ...

All politicians lie ( requisite for the job, or you don't get elected )

or...

The reality of the Presidency is vastly different and constrainig than the la-la-land of the campaign.

[iNow]

He's also still only president elect. Hasn't even been a full week yet with that title. He can essentially say anything he wants. Doesn't matter. It's what actions he actually takes once in office and which bills congress ultimately sends him for signature that matters.

[StringJunky]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I'm disappointed in you, harking from Canada: Plus Ca change...

[Phi for All]

The ACA may end up working much better now simply because Congress won't be activily obstructing it. They will make a few superficial changes that could have been made all along had they allowed it and then claim to have fixed Obama's mess.

 

But they'll never enact the changes that really need to be made, to turn our healthcare system's focus towards healthcare instead of profit. They can't visualize effective socialist systems that don't also make a capitalist profit, and they don't understand how mixing the two systems in the same programs is like planting weeds along with other seeds in your vegetable garden. Capitalism tends to take over when it's unregulated (something else they protest).

 

It will never happen under Trump, but I'm convinced we need to do more to stop this wealth disparity. Not by redistribution, but with proven methods. Like restricting private schools, so the wealthy are forced to support public education fully instead of lavishing the best on their own children while starving public systems. Ditto with healthcare, standardize the systems so the wealthy are invested in support, so the whole society flourishes. It works elsewhere, the rich still get to be rich, and everyone else is better off so life for all is vastly improved.

[Ten oz]

 

But they'll never enact the changes that really need to be made, to turn our healthcare system's focus towards healthcare instead of profit. They can't visualize effective socialist systems that don't also make a capitalist profit, and they don't understand how mixing the two systems in the same programs is like planting weeds along with other seeds in your vegetable garden. Capitalism tends to take over when it's unregulated (something else they protest).

 

It will never happen under Trump, but I'm convinced we need to do more to stop this wealth disparity. Not by redistribution, but with proven methods. Like restricting private schools, so the wealthy are forced to support public education fully instead of lavishing the best on their own children while starving public systems. Ditto with healthcare, standardize the systems so the wealthy are invested in support, so the whole society flourishes. It works elsewhere, the rich still get to be rich, and everyone else is better off so life for all is vastly improved.

It is about more than capitalism. To a person, including people on this forum, everyone that I have communicated with that voted for Trump concededs that he isn't qualified/competent to be POTUS and promotes racist views. Capitalism doesn't explain that. Doesn't explain how an adult with a normal functioning brain could knowing vote for someone they understood was unfit. It is about tribalism; us vs them. Socialism works in small nations where everyone sees everyone else as an "us". Once there is a "them" it doesn't work so well anymore. FDR was a hero. His social safety net programs were very popular. Eisenhower was a populist and his politics were popular. Only after civil rights when the "them" became equal participants did socialism and populism become dirty words conservatives said under their breath along with facism and communism.

[Phi for All]

It is about more than capitalism. To a person, including people on this forum, everyone that I have communicated with that voted for Trump concededs that he isn't qualified/competent to be POTUS and promotes racist views. Capitalism doesn't explain that. Doesn't explain how an adult with a normal functioning brain could knowing vote for someone they understood was unfit. It is about tribalism; us vs them. Socialism works in small nations where everyone sees everyone else as an "us". Once there is a "them" it doesn't work so well anymore. FDR was a hero. His social safety net programs were very popular. Eisenhower was a populist and his politics were popular. Only after civil rights when the "them" became equal participants did socialism and populism become dirty words conservatives said under their breath along with facism and communism.

 

It's always about more than one thing, but personally I think many who identify as conservative are huddling under a blanket not meant for them. Modern Republican conservatism, the kind we see in our seats of power, isn't about being smart with our money. It isn't about being frugal, or solving problems with common sense. It's also not about preserving American ideals, or decency, or promoting family values. IOW, it's not about what most "conservatives" think it's about.

 

Based on the way they behave, it's clear that modern Republican conservatism wants to clearly draw a line between "them" and various "us" targets. They want social programs only so the public can pay for roads and airports, while corporate and top bracket taxes to maintain them are lowered (or dodged altogether). They want to lower wages so they can build a cheaper private swimming pool while cutting funding for public pools. I see a serious divide between what many conservatives think their leadership is doing for them and what they really want done.

 

At its heart, I see a lot of this vagueness, the kind Trump has relied on in his rally speeches, that says nothing really but seems to speak to the hearts of the voters. It's a lot like the way the media sets up stories with buzzwords so you'll fill in what they don't say with whatever you want them to be saying. Every side seemingly equal, everything across a fence, us v them, take a side, black or white. Expend your outrage on emails and innuendo, ignore the Russians and that man behind the curtain.

[waitforufo]

 

It's always about more than one thing, but personally I think many who identify as conservative are huddling under a blanket not meant for them. Modern Republican conservatism, the kind we see in our seats of power, isn't about being smart with our money. It isn't about being frugal, or solving problems with common sense. It's also not about preserving American ideals, or decency, or promoting family values. IOW, it's not about what most "conservatives" think it's about.

 

Based on the way they behave, it's clear that modern Republican conservatism wants to clearly draw a line between "them" and various "us" targets. They want social programs only so the public can pay for roads and airports, while corporate and top bracket taxes to maintain them are lowered (or dodged altogether). They want to lower wages so they can build a cheaper private swimming pool while cutting funding for public pools. I see a serious divide between what many conservatives think their leadership is doing for them and what they really want done.

 

At its heart, I see a lot of this vagueness, the kind Trump has relied on in his rally speeches, that says nothing really but seems to speak to the hearts of the voters. It's a lot like the way the media sets up stories with buzzwords so you'll fill in what they don't say with whatever you want them to be saying. Every side seemingly equal, everything across a fence, us v them, take a side, black or white. Expend your outrage on emails and innuendo, ignore the Russians and that man behind the curtain.

So people who see a bright but different future for America are evil? How intellectually diverse of you.

[Ten oz]

 

At its heart, I see a lot of this vagueness, the kind Trump has relied on in his rally speeches, that says nothing really but seems to speak to the hearts of the voters. It's a lot like the way the media sets up stories with buzzwords so you'll fill in what they don't say with whatever you want them to be saying. Every side seemingly equal, everything across a fence, us v them, take a side, black or white. Expend your outrage on emails and innuendo, ignore the Russians and that man behind the curtain.

This is what scares me the most. Is this the new normal? Candidates no longer turn over financial records or provide visibility on their international holdings and relationships. In 2020 does Russia just get to cyber attack a candidate again?

 

This system is going down hill very fast. In 2004 Swift Boaters for Justice was a third party group launched with money not covered by campaign finance rules. It was a unique situation that would have been illegal if the Bush campaign had been directly involved with them (they were). That gave way to superpacs following citizens united. As much money as could be raised could be used provided the candidates themselves were directly calling the shots (they were). Now we have entered a new era where candidates can benefit from third party cyber attackers who illegal steal private information and release it as propaganda to besmirch opponents. Where does this end?

 

Then there are the voter supression issues.

[Delta1212]

So people who see a bright but different future for America are evil? How intellectually diverse of you.

Depends on what the difference is. Many of them, I have no particular problem with what they are hoping for, I just either think the people they have elected aren't the ones who are going to make it happen or that the things they want simply won't work the way they think they will. That is fine. Many of them probably think the same of me.

 

Others want things that, yes, I think are evil.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Delta1212