Huh. I’d’a guessed the capital was Damascus.
ETA: After checking - Damascus IS the capital. Aleppo is a Governorate capital, like a state or provincial capital, the political center of one of 14 political/administrative divisions within Syria.
Prior to the war, Aleppo was also Syria’s largest city, incidentally.
Middle class Trump supports are voting for the benefit of rural types the same way middle class liberals will support expanding Obamacare even though it will likely make it more expensive on their end. Its possible to vote in a way that doesn’t maximize your benefit if you think its going to have a net positive effect on the country.
There’s really nothing wrong with it. Robert Kennedy was a fine attorney general. Hillary Clinton was a fine advisor on healthcare. If it’s a competent person, then whether he or she is a family member doesn’t matter to me.
Even at the time, all the objections were bullshit culture wars stuff.
George W. Bush tried to appoint his personal lawyer to the Supreme Court. That was a problem not because she was a close friend but because she was clearly not one of the country’s most qualified people.
What I object to is the existence of the position of the First Lady. That’s the unearned—and indeed unneeded—position that someone gets solely for being the president’s relative.
Get rid of the Office of the First Lady. If the president’s spouse has the skill and knowledge to do a real job, let the president appoint him or her to it, like Bill Clinton did with Hillary and the health care task force.
Aleppo is an important city, but The capital of Syria is Damascus. The capital of Assyria was Nineveh.*
*According to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Is the role of “First Lady” an actual office? Or just the name that we’ve always used for the President’s wife? Or is this a joke that I just missed?
Is it an “office”, i.e. with a salary and official powers and duties and such? I thought it was more like an informal social thing which I admit has gradually evolved into something overburdened with traditions and media attention.
Looking into it, I see wiki actually has a page for “Office of the First Lady of the United States” and superficially it makes sense that a “hostess” role would exist, in that the White House does serve as venue for important state diners and receptions and whatnot.
I find I’m okay with the President’s spouse being used as an informal ambassador, but if they’re appointed to any role with any official capacity, they should draw a salary and be accountable and subject to dismissal, with the “First Lady” title applying only to the above mentioned “hostess” role. Heck, one can do away with that entirely and just hire a permanent White House Social Secretary to handle functions and non-residential decorations and such.
Yes, rustbelters, rural folk- no jobs, no future, they see Trump as some sort of chance. But Trump is a terrible choice for them. Trump has a long history of screwing the little guy blue-collar worker, and there’s nothing in his platform which will help.
- Single issue voters. I know two who are gun rights voters. But I dont see Trump as a friend to gun owners, his stance is not far from Hillary’s.
So honestly, unless you are a racist, I see no reason to vote trump.
The office has a staff of 20 or so people for the last few presidencies. Jacqueline Kennedy had about 40 and Lady Bird Johnson had about 30.
#11 There is another reason, that is becoming quite clear; They can’t stand the idea of a woman being in power. And oddly, women that support Trump don’t seem to care.
I’m starting to believe that’s most of it.
- David, 60yo man working in a mid-management role for Hibu, formerly Yellow Book USA, one of the nation’s largest publishers of telephone books. Hates Hillary, has been conditioned to hate her for 25 years. Not college educated, his entire career has been in phone books and he is just wishing his company can outlast his career. I asked him once who was to blame for the destruction of telephone books, Obama or Steve Jobs/iPhone, and he said, of course, Obama.
Have no problem telling Dave that Trump is evil and supporting him is evil. Have no problem, really, telling anybody that.
I’m sorry, but they ARE stupid if they believe that. Only a gullible fool would belive that Trump can do what he claims he can. At the very least, they are extremely ignorant about governance. Their knowledge of the world is probably limited to reality TV.
You can be hopeful without being stupid.
Sure, but that’s not what’s happening here. If you’re really hoping for political change–and if you’re going to vote–you need to have some minimal understanding of how the government works, and you need to have some minimal understanding of what’s causing your problems. You can’t just sit on your lazy mental ass all the time watching Celebrity Apprentice, and then vote for its star because it looks like he knows what he’s doing. You can’t just believe what he says because it sounds good. That’s an “F” in citizenship, and you deserve what you get when he becomes president and nothing changes.
They think they’re “sticking it” to the politicians by supporting Trump, but he’s the ultimate bullshitting politician of all time, who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about making their lives any better. If they can’t see this, their “hope” is really just a function of their ignorance and civic laziness.
If so many people are so goddamn stupid, then is the very concept of democracy flawed? Why should we let the peasants vote? Maybe they should have to pass a written test of some kind. Or maybe only specially vetted persons should have a say, like in China.
(:dubious:)
I can answer for part of the mystery.
Ironically, the refusal to think part of Trump support, was trained into existence by the Republican Party itself, on purpose, for the last half century. Ironically, they adopted this as a strategy to build the party, directly from observing it being used by their opponents on the Left. And the reason they did it, was to protect their overall strategy, of building a majority by welding people who actually have a natural dislike of each other (such as Christians and Racists, or Anti-abortionists and Anti-government people) together.
Thus, the reason why you find so many Trump people who give as reasons, concerns which Trump clearly wont help at all, or which he might even damage. They have been encouraged for years to be very upset about all sorts of things, to assume that vindictive enemies are to blame, and that DECEPTION is necessary to defeat those enemies.
Hence, when Trump says anything they despise, they pretend eagerly that this is because he is FAKING THINGS, in order to get into power, so that he can actually do all the wonderful things the GOP has been promising for years, and then “pulling up lame” when the time comes to prove it.
Maybe, which is why constitutional protections are needed if you don’t want your democracy to spin rapidly out of control.
Anyway, if someone wants to present smart reasons to vote Trump, they’re free to do so. I suggest these might run along the lines of:
-
Having reasonable concerns about Hilary Clinton - they are many things she can legitimately be criticized for, so find and express those rather than something baseless. If, for instance, after all the investigations of Benghazi and the mail server failed to turn up anything criminal, you still use either or both of those to justify voting for Trump, I’m okay with saying your position is emotional, not reasonable.
-
Having reasonable positive opinions of Trump - pointing to specific accomplishments of his, rather than just what he’s said during the campaign. Off-the-cuff bombast is easy, administration is hard.
-
If you really want to “burn the system” (and I can see the appeal to some degree), will you also be voting against the incumbents in your House and (if applicable) Senate races? How about your governor and other state offices?
As an afterthought to (3), I suggest that if you really want to shake things up, don’t waste your vote on Trump. Go for a third party in hopes 5% of the electorate will do the same and follow through with support between now and 2020 to challenge the entrenched two-party system.
Why would you come to that conclusion? Who said anything about peasants or literacy? I guess you think the poor and illiterate are all stupid.
If Trump gets elected, they’ll eventually learn that he’s full of shit. But normally there are enough informed people to keep things from going this far. That’s why democracy works.
Right. “Democracy” as straight out majority mob rule is unstable, you have to have framework of constitutional stability behind it, and a willingness to abide by it.
#?
My uncle, who is a Vietnam veteran and believes liberals cut and run from communists. He hates liberals, especially the Clintons.
They sound deplorable