You’re free to dislike my reasons, or disagree with them, or even try to persuade me that they’re not very good reasons, but you’ll excuse me if I make my own determinations about what “true reasons” are.
Ding. Ding. Ding. Because his proposals are so unlikely to be literally implemented, and so obviously targeted to get voters to bite, that you end up knowing very little about what he actually plans to do, about policy specifics. This uncertainty translates directly into risk.
So, he won’t do anything like that, because that would be crazy. Therefore, you are reassured?
Or he very well might want to, but it would be impossible. That would be more reassuring.
I think an evangelical put it really nicely:
The reporter deserves a scolding. Even as receptive as I am to the ideas offered, the writing is poorly structured. I cannot determine what is an opinion of the author and what is reporting of the opinion of someone else. Its not that damn hard to use paragraph breaks, ellipses and quote marks to make things clear about who is saying what.
And this:
Thought I’d heard them all, but not this one. Verification is cried out for, a cite for sore eyes.
Don Jr. compares Syrian refugees to tainted Skittles. Complete with an official Trump-Pence logo, no less.
Nothing like a little dehumanization to scare up some votes, amirite?!
Refugees, who have known little mercy, turn to us, the most powerful nation in human history. This isn’t punching down, its not even pissing down. Brave, brave, brave Sir Donald.
I am reminded, it rings a knell.
According to Politico.com, Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy’s daughter and the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, has said that George H. W. Bush is voting for Clinton.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/exclusive-george-hw-bush-to-vote-for-hillary-228395
Well, Clinton is proposing a pretty obvious fix that was unobtainable before: the single payer option. Meanwhile, the republicans have no alternative to propose.
Fair enough. It’s not realistic to deport 11 million people in the span of 4 years, but I at least understand the sentiment here.
But what’s actually the problem here? The rest of the international community wasn’t going forward on the embargoes any more, so it’s not like we could stop Iran on our own. And every time we waited on a diplomatic solution with Iran, the terms keep getting worse, as their position consistently got stronger, despite the embargo.
The closest thing I found to this was this:
So I have no idea what you’re talking about. This seems to be a rehashed and bogus right-wing talking point.
And Trump will? I realize he’s got quite a lot of bluster and bravado, but does he have anything else? Like, he’s been bragging for the better part of a year about his amazing plan to defeat ISIS, right? Well, when pressed on it, it turns out the whole plan was to literally “make the generals come up with something”. That’s not a revolutionary new plan to fight the islamic state, that’s the same basic delegation that’s been happening for the last eight years, with the added bonus of implying (and earlier outright stating) that those responsible for actually coming up with the plan are incompetent and incapable.
It’s the stupid psychopath problem. Apparently Trump thinks, and you’ve apparently bought into the idea, that the main problem is not that these issues are complex or difficult to resolve, but that there are easy solutions that we just haven’t been tough enough to try. That alone should be a clear indicator that Trump’s ISIS plans are bullshit, if everything else wasn’t a dead giveaway. He’s bullshitting you.
Even assuming Clinton was running against a candidate who was competent, why would you say she wouldn’t lead the war on ISIS effectively? What’s indicated to you that she’s incapable? Even leaving out the comparison to Trump, why would she be “incompetent”?
Well, it could be worse - she could try to use her position to amplify her business interests, as opposed to her non-profit charity work. She’s pledged to completely abandon the foundation if she wins. I see little reason to doubt that pledge.
Largely baseless…
Fair enough.
It’s got some problems, make no mistake. There are a few legitimate issues in there, but when you consider the full package, I cannot imagine that they outweigh the crucial flaws possessed by Donald Trump.
He has no viable or realistic policy plans.
He lies about nearly everything on a near-constant basis, and uses those lies to prop up every one of his policies.
He completely and utterly lacks temperament, being set off angrily by tweets is not something that’s okay for someone with the nuclear football.
He’s notoriously unable to focus on anything but himself.
He lacks any and all understanding of policy, and has shown no interest over the past year of gaining such an understanding.
His plans would drop us back into a recession according to at least two noteworthy sources, and that’s ignoring the really insane proposals, which would take a stick of dynamite to the bedrock of the world economy and is literally dangerous to even suggest.
He listens to sources which are at best complete crap - you should not want your president praising Alex fucking Jones.
He’s led to an extreme resurgence and empowerment of white supremacists.
As Vox puts it: this election is a choice between a normal candidate and an abnormal candidate. With Clinton, we have a basic idea of what we’re getting, because we’ve gotten similar before. With Trump, we know what we’re getting is probably not good, but we have no idea just how bad things might get.
Let’s be crystal fucking clear here. If you’re voting for Trump, you have fundamentally failed at either civics 101, fact-checking 101, or not-being-a-racist-douchebag 101. That, or you’re a single-issue voter, which is also incredibly problematic. This should be the most straightforward and easy election in American history. It’s an established and reputable politician against a racist, shit-flinging howler monkey. The fact that around half the country seems ready to rally around the latter makes me so incredibly glad my parents got me out of that shithole backwater of a country before things really got bad, and then depresses me when I remember just how huge of an influence my home country has even here in Germany.
I think my uncle put it best:
It is impossible to disassociate a vote for Trump from everything he has said, he stands for (or doesn’t stand for) and in particular the outrageous behavior he has encouraged among his supporters which his dangerous and damaging to our nation.
I don’t know that I’ll completely write off a friend, acquaintance, colleague or family member (!) who votes for Trump, but no doubt it will seriously reduce my respect for them and absolutely change the way I look at them.
Case in point: this person thinks Trump is better on the first amendment. He’s not been paying attention. At all. Like, even pretending to be awake.
Budget Player Cadet: well and clearly stated. I salute you.
How can anyone not see it? And yet, sadly, many* will refuse to see it. And I can’t understand why.
*Even in this usually pretty damned intelligent group.
Trump has apparently veered back into “babbling incoherence” mode. Tonight on Fox News, O’Reilly asked him how he’d respond in the debates if Clinton attacks him on his record of how he treats women, and he responded thusly;
[QUOTE=Loser Donald]
Well you know, the New York Times wrote a story about women and the women called the office and said, ‘We never said that about Donald Trump. We really like him. He’s really good.’ They quoted women and they never even said it. It was on the front page, centerfold, massive big color picture. It was disgraceful. They are so dishonest. I’ll tell you what. There is nobody that respects women more than Donald Trump.
[/QUOTE]
He’s so terrified of the idea that a girl is going to call him out that he can’t even bring himself to talk about the possibility and instead goes off on a tangent.
Not to defend the Trump campaign, but I remember essentially the same analogy about men being made a few years ago during the “#YesAllWomen” thing on Twitter.
Yeah, sure, but if every woman vetted men to the degree that refugees are vetted, they wouldn’t be in much danger. Not saying women should do that, just that the skittles analogy has potential value in illustrating why women might be apprehensive when dealing with men. The analogy is still useless when applied to granting asylum to refugees, except for fear mongering.
Trump wants to do away with more of the Constitution.
I wasn’t aware of hospitals that require patients to drag themselves to the cafeteria.
Horrible thing, defending yourself in court. it’s almost like we have a justice system.
And…?
Well, it’s ok to skip due process when you know the guy is guilty. Don’t worry, Trump will only do that for the guilty ones.
It was a stupid analogy then, it was a stupid analogy now, but I don’t remember the Internet getting up in arms about the former.
Then you misremember. Simply Google “M&Ms #YesAllWomen”
But even if “the Internet” didn’t get up in arms about it back then, I repeat: “And…?”