Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I’m not super enthused about Clinton either, but she is much closer to my views than Trump.
Regarding Trump’s economic views, how do you feel about his suggestion that the US could convince bond holders to accept less than full payback? Do you agree that having bond holders take a haircut would be a good move? He’s also suggested protectionist tariffs and possibly leaving the WTO. Are you on board with those ideas?
Let’s remember that Trump was a budding Democrat, too. I think he will be more effective in working both sides of the aisle than Clinton.
As for the measures you mention, it’s a fluid dynamic and each item is part of the whole scenario. So for me it’s not about the parts, but about the whole. But in general, just because we happen now to be the strongest country in the world, I believe we should act according to the Golden Rule, especially thinking about what if we were not the strongest, how would we wish to be treated? But you cannot satisfy all of the people all of the time and sometimes you will end up with some who are highly upset.
Nope.
Bwaa Ha haa… [wipes a tear in an eye] uh. NO.
Trump is not a leader. He is a populist. And there is not a humble or civil bone on him.
“Why do I have to repent or ask for forgiveness, if I am not making mistakes?”
Besides poor word choices he already has shown how poor he chooses his fellow travelers and likely to be cabinet members.
I think that you are forgetting that Trump is like a top, (I call it El Trompo) we already did see how he can change positions, and unfortunately the way he has landed ***now ***after the furious recent spins is to get closer to very reprehensible henchmen that demonstrates where Trump is bound to do in his presidency. His democratic budding was nipped in the bud already.
Well, celebrate today’s post-DNC convention announcement.
So far we’ve only been seeing the classy, take-the-high-road Donald Trump, see.
Yeah, but all the books about Trump and what Trump has accomplished never go beyond Chapter 11.
Trump’s speech said nothing. Hillary’s speech had substance but her voice is so grating it made me cringe. I would rather read Hillary’s speech or listen to anyone else read it. Her voice reminds me of a nagging house wife from the 50s, like Alice from the honeymooners. Or like a schoolmarm scolding a classroom of unruly children who did something wrong. Everyone talks about how its amazing she has made it so far in politics because she is a woman, but I am always wondering how did she make it so far with such an annoying voice. Seems like she would have had a speech coach train her to speak without sounding irritatingly, shrill and condescending.
The problem is that you can’t run the country like you do a business. You can’t fire the Supreme Court just because you don’t like the way they rule on an issue.
He’s advocated for war crimes. He’s wanting to expand torture. He wants to make it easier to sue the press and collect lots of money.
Many of his suggested policy stances could very well be unconstitutional. His Muslim ban (I know he’s walked that back some) could violate the First Amendment because it has the government promoting one religion over another.
OK, fair enough. I admit that my support of Clinton is based to some extent on a sort of Gestalt rather than a detailed analysis of all her policies.
You mentioned the Golden Rule and how we’d like to be treated if we were not the most powerful nation. I think this is a good view. But I would point to Trump’s advocacy of torture and his proposal to attack the (non-combatant) families of terrorists as evidence that his views don’t align with yours in this respect.
Again realizing that we all make our political choices based on gut feeling to some extent, I’m curious if there are any specific plans put forward by Trump that you want to see implemented.
If you are directing that at me, then that is quite offensive. It reminds me of 2008 when people wanted to label me as a racist because Obama is black and I must not think Obama will be a good President for racial reasons. You know even though I am a Republican I don’t necessarily pass judgements on race in 2008 nor do I pass judgement based on gender in 2016.
It has nothing to do with “a female mak[ing] her voice heard” so go ahead and shove the accusation of sexism up your ass where it belongs. It is an attack on one specific woman whose voice gets shrill when she is building up the energy in her speech so she sounds like a harpy and it makes THAT SPECIFIC WOMAN displeasing to listen to.
So don’t generalize a statement I make about one specific woman into an accusation of generalized sexism again.
First question: how many of them vote Pub anyways?
Second question: Hasn’t Hillary lost the young progressive vote by beating up on Bernie and stealing his nomination?*
*I’m joking but BernieBrats are serious.
Fear is a strong motivator, and Trump is tapping into peoples’ fears. Just. To. Get. The. Vote. He is playing the game, and playing it quite well. All politicians do it to some extent. One example, Obama promised to close down Gitmo, and that earned many votes. It’s still not done. Maybe Obama was sincere in his promise, and maybe not. Hard to tell. And I’m not asking to debate / discuss the Whys for it not being closed.
Torture? Some of it has its place.
Attack the non-combatant family members of terrorists? I am wholly against that, but, first we need to define non- combatant. Aiding and abetting? That might earn some level of ‘attack’ in my book.
Finally, I think that of all of us who vote, that each of us does not agree 100% with every policy or position of our chosen candidate.
Good one!
Obama signed the order to close Gitmo in January, 2009, right after his inauguration. It was blocked by Congress. He had tried repeatedly since then, and is still trying, to get it closed down despite congressional opposition.
Torture only had a place if you want to be the bad guy. If you want to have a moral and just nation, it has no place.
So you’re wholly against attacking the non-combatant family members of terrorists. Maybe.
As it has been through history, Torture has a place among **authoritarians to get justifications for very reprehensible acts of their governments.
**
It has no place in a democracy, but it is clear that you think it will be appropriate for a Trump presidency.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/torturingdemocracy/interviews/steven_kleinman.html
If I may ask, on what do you base your belief that Trump “will be much more presidential”?
It’s been my experience that people tell you exactly who they are through word and deed; It’s our job to listen.
Trump has demonstrated throughout his life that he is in this only for himself and he’s willing and able to lie, cheat and steal to get ahead. Additionally, he doesn’t much care whom he cheats or lies to, including those much less fortunate than he. By his own account, it’s a formula that’s made him the success he is today. What would precipitate this radical change of character in Trump that you believe will happen?
Torture has been used this way, to be sure. However it can be a way to get vital information when that information is time critical. To categorically rule out any and all forms of torture, forever, might be too limiting.
Sometimes you have to fight hard to keep our democracy, if you can keep it.
Quite astute. If only the world were clearly black and white. Again, define non-combatant for me. What exactly does that mean? Where is the line drawn, across which attacking the family members is and is not justified?
To what end would we want to discuss this? I provide my justification, you provide your counterpoints. Then I provide my counterpoints. Where does this end? Let us agree to disagree.
And pretend that murdering the innocent is nothing but an abstract intellectual point? No, let’s not.
The terms “shrill” and “queen of the harpies” are quite obviously sexist, because they are insults predicated on the object being a woman. It’s like arguing that saying “uppity” isn’t a racist term when used to describe a black person.
The criticism that Clinton doesn’t give prepared speeches particularly well is perfectly valid, but when it’s couched in such derogatory terms, it should be called out.
That’ll earn you a warning, Saint Cad. You cannot address other posters that way.