Final Countdown - Page 8

@Hundmutter Uh... Hillary has a long, long history of "mistakes". Her habit of repeating them is astounding. And her idea of taking responsibility, never has any consequences, they always end up as empty words. Her bureaucracy is her insulation. Simple as that.

I am not defending Trump and his faults, but you asked me a question and I do know people who are not blue collar, bigoted white males without a college education, who actually support Trump, openly. I find many women Trump supporters are quite vociferous.

I don't feel like explaining what I find obvious, it just lands on deaf ears or gets twisted or boxed into someone's agenda box. Or someone complains about an adjective, metaphor or simile, as a path to some kind of mental high road. I find it pretty tiresome.


@Mindhunt Maybe you should just stop trying to guess. You aren't very good at it.

@beetree, you said, "LOL Let's see what happened, my concise abbreviated version, IMHO:"

I don't think, judging by what followed, that you know what concise or abbreviated mean.

Did the article you posted come to the conclusion that Trump wasn't a fascist? No.

See, that is concise and abbreviated.

Oh, and those personal shots you took were not something that make you look good. I don't think you really want to go that route either because you couldn't handle personal attacks as well as I can. Your last few posts show me that you aren't the kind of person who could take it. You'll either leave or ask for me to get banned if it goes that way.

I do know what is funny. Take it light. What I wrote was intended as satire. Arguing with you can only end one way. I get that. You maybe don't get, that I get that.

Don't be ridiculous. I don't ask for people to get banned! LOL GSD Admin certainly would NEVER listen to me. As a matter of fact, if I were to even suggest something —anything, really— he most likely will do the exact opposite. You'd have to do something really challenging or awful to them, only, to get yourself banned. They love having you here!

What personal shots? People have been dumping on me for years. I used to get upset but I have a much thicker skin now, if you want to have a go at me, that's up to you. The mods would probably enjoy it, immensely. They know I don't want to leave, so don't worry about that, either.

Bee, I don't think regurgitating Hilary's mistakes & misadventures at me cuts it ! I have already said I don't think the sun shines out of her (although I do think she's had more accusations thrown at her - by Trump and by others - than is strictly fair; and I do think the issue of who becomes President should not be decided by the sentiment of "never a woman", as it certainly is for some).

Your reply was to my comment about this particular set of allegations about this last batch of e-mails being found, again, not to contain anything illegal. [I proposed that Trump's proclaiming and predicting that this was when "it was all going to come out & it would be a bigger scandal than Watergate", was yet another example of his shooting off his mouth without solid foundation, which would be hard for his fans to defend.]

Not asking you a question, there, as far as I know. You said :
"I don't think you understand that his voters will see a difference between a campaigning Trump and a Trump who is most confident when already in charge" i.e. once President, Trump would cease to be "on the defensive" and "that is the Trump they want ".

 

My reply to that was, in essence, that they will not get what they want.

How does Hillary's record, to good or ill, make that understanding of what Trump would be like wrong ?

Hund, I personally have not heard a single person say, "never a woman" during this whole campaign. Of course, I do not frequent some of the more extreme view sites, so someone must have said it, I am sure. I have always been in the "never Hillary" camp, admittedly.

I don't really care how Trump classified the email findings, that he did say bigger than "Watergate". Time may still prove him right. And his hyperbole isn't a sticking point with me, either. Some things one can get used to about certain people and it all gets taken into account. The degree of scandal isn't the main point. 

What I notice is that every time I bring up the serious lapses in ethics consistently attributed to Hillary, I only hear back how she isn't going to be charged, or she did nothing illegal. The wording gets to be moved around, delicately, because yes, there were illegalities, but Comey came up with the "lack of intent to harm" determination, so as to support his statement that no prosecutions would be sought. The dance of politics and words. I would enjoy the discussion that examines how one's actions can violate ethics and still be legal. That matters to some, sometimes. But never to anyone here, apparently.

The understanding as you call it, "...that they will not get what they want" is not a foregone conclusion, it is your opinion even if it probably has a 45% population probability of those who would agree with you. So, I simply was using a strategy most other posters here use by making a montage between the two candidates, so as to level the field re: undesirable results that their records have produced, and how now they would be suggestions as future predictors.
 

More to the point, it has a 99.9% chance of being RIGHT, just based on his previous history as a businessman, not to mention those checks & balances of the US political system you referred to yourself !

Its clearly NOT the "understanding" of most of his supporters; they must genuinely believe Trump is going to smarten up if he wins this election. I just wonder that they do not 'get' the obvious. It is one thing believing that a candidate will DO certain things - and hoping they will stick to that, despite obstacles - and completely another to expect that their candidate will suddenly acquire skills he just does not have. Like the ability to tell the truth. The ability to make a point as a logical statement and not go off at a tangent in mid-sentence. The ability to distinguish between electioneering and believing in every conspiracy theory going. The recognition that he would do better with a lot of his female supporters (let alone the rest of the world's womenhood) if he toned down the contemptuous sexist comment and behaviour. All of this is a matter of record, and goes back long before the past 18 months.

If, BTW, you are to be credited with being as aware of Trump's faults as you are of Clinton's, at some point you will need to acknowledge that. I am wanting to believe you are not as naive as those people at his rallies.

There is no way to justify your claim as to 99.99% accuracy. You don't have the savvy to judge his business acumen, either. That large scale real estate developers experience busts and booms is very typical. High risk goes hand in hand with high profits.

Just try to imagine yourself, being able to afford an almost billion dollar loss! People have very different risk tolerances based on goals. The goal of a President will certainly be different than a luxury hotel. Managing on large scales though, can be a skill that can translate favorably for a prez. Just one example, for instance. 

The conspiracy theory stuff, well, all of it is nuts. I really only know about the birther ridiculousness, and he has since recanted that. Not too sure how serious the mind bending has gone. The thing I am not worried about is, having his finger on the nuclear codes. The whole point with his followers is to BE unpredictable even if the use of such force is 99.999999% unlikely to ever meet such a threshold. They see that as a plus vs. Hillary's stance that promises "no boots on the ground". Declaring what options we self limit in a war is just dumb.

As far as the sexist talk, or an unapproved kiss, well, I think he learned that lesson the hard way. There isn't time to proof that thought, however. If he would be so stupid as to make that mistake again, I am sure he'll get arrested for it.

Inelegant speech? Not a deal breaker. I bet at the conference table there is a different approach than appealing to a large and boisterous crowd.

Alienating assorted groups, that is probably his worst move and he would in hindsight, probably want a do-over. The finesse he lacked for such a realization will probably take its toll, and he will regret it.

You are finding faults that would destroy a career politician but he isn't one, so those skeleton's in his closet aren't so scary as the one's found in the politician who should have known that company would come snooping. That is either hubris, or horrible foresight of judgment and really the worse, so as to declare— there is no excuse for Hillary.

@beetree, if you have to explain that something was supposed to be funny then that tells you something about the quality of your humor.

You also don't get anything, that's your problem, you think there is something to get.

And for someone who claims to not be supporting Trump and is still undecided you sure act like an apologist for him. You argue over the semantics of how much of fascist he is rather than address the actual fascist tendencies he exhibits.

He also couldn't afford a billion dollar loss. It doesn't work that way. He may not even have lost any actual cash. Anyone who pays taxes knows that there are all sorts of things that can be written off as losses. The fact he needed to be bailed out by his creditors, the ones who really stood to lose, shows that he couldn't afford to lose a billion dollars.

It's also interesting how you ignore Trump's views on the 1st and 4th Amendments. It's as if the only bad things about him in your mind are that he says mean and foolish things. Alienates people? Saying you will round up 11 million people is not alienating a group of people, it is dehumanizing and demonizing them. Oh right, the people who will have to deal with getting stopped by the police for suspicion of being illegal Mexicans won't look like you or your kids. The people who will be getting stopped and frisked won't be people who look like you or your kids and don't live in your neighborhood. I don't think alienation describes how they feel or how they will feel. Marginalized, oppressed, victimized and scapegoated might be more like it. And let's not even get into how Muslims, or rather Muslim Americans, or any American who might look "Middle Eastern" might feel. But let's talk about how Trump will regret it rather than how they feel about it. Regret it? He knew what he was saying and who he was saying it to. He wasn't trying to sway Rand Paul supporters.

I guess it's easy for you to gloss over the birther movement and its inherent racism. The funny thing is that he demanded to see Obama's birth certificate yet he won't produce a letter that says he is being audited. He said he would. He could even release his taxes regardless of being audited. Only the rubes who follow him believe you can't do that. Besides a birther he's an antivaxer and climate change denier. He hasn't shown that he has a grasp on any issue.

I also guarantee that when you take into account Hillary's record you ignore, or flat out forget, her record as a senator. Even Trump approved of it. You will also ignore Trump's charitable foundation and its issues as well as Trump University. You really have shown that you are not as aware of Trump's shortcomings as you claim. If all you can hang on to is that he has a potty mouth then you haven't been paying attention. On your list of cons for Trump you leave out a lot of things.

Speaking of potty mouths, a Trump advisor called Hillary a cu*t on twitter. Oh yeah, these are the types of people we want representing us.

One more thing, Hillary didn't say no boots on the ground in the context that you mean it. Besides, we already have troops on the ground in Iraq. There is a difference between, as you said, declaring our limits in a war, and going to war. She didn't say she would never go to war (and there are limits in a war, think Geneva Conventions). She was talking about the current state of Iraq and whether we would re-enter that war or get involved in Syria's mess.

You didn't see the :)))))))))))))))) at the end of my post? Seems to me you flat out ignored how It could be humor because, well, you simply lost control of the conservation, oops ... debate.

Wasn't I self-deprecating? Reiterating how irrational, stupid and suffering attention deficit I was? All terms you, lovingly bestowed upon me...more or less.

See, also by your next accusations, why I don't like TRYING to explain my tolerance of flawed people to other (flawed) people who rail loudest against biases of all kinds? Well, just the ones who don't think like them. The pit of hell and social pariah is the best way to go for them. Suffering and a lonely death, that should do It! Now, that would make for a good night's sleep. 

I just have to admit I lack the skill of expression trying to find some sort of middle ground.

Have a great night. Get rested up, it's going to be a bumpy ride!

Bee, when you say that you "really only know about the birther" stuff, that is where it would have benefitted you to have had the patience to read/watch some of the references we have been linked to / talked about. Lots of detail available about things Trump has 'believed in' and propagated, over time.

To claim that (whatever the percentage odds are) my assessment of his failings is all just my "opinion" is to decide that it is also just my opinion that the sun will rise in the morning. A lot of what Trump has done and said, for years, is in the public domain, much of it on video of him saying it, so to turn your eyes away from it does not stop it existing. And to defend or discount it does not make him someone suitable to become "leader of the free world".

BTW interesting article in today's New York Times about how all the last batch of e-mails could be reviewed inside a week.