Trump

redrumloa said:
Asshole? Yeah that he could be called at times. I'd rather elect an asshole than a certifiably evil person.
Click to expand...

If I *had* to choose between those two, I'd probably plump for Trump as well.
But *only* because the desperate pit of putrefied pus that he represents is marginally less offensive than the desperate pit of putrefied pus that Clinton represents.

Whichever of those two you get, the future for not just your country but also the rest of us, will be anything but great.

If I actually had a vote, it would go to Jill Stein and let the chips fall where they will.
 
Robert said:
If I *had* to choose between those two, I'd probably plump for Trump as well.
But *only* because the desperate pit of putrefied pus that he represents is marginally less offensive than the desperate pit of putrefied pus that Clinton represents.

Whichever of those two you get, the future for not just your country but also the rest of us, will be anything but great.

If I actually had a vote, it would go to Jill Stein and let the chips fall where they will.
Click to expand...

If Gary Johnson was conducting himself the same way as he did in 2012, I'd still be supporting him. What a fraud he turned out to be.

As for Trump, I think he could very well be a welcome change. He is the only candidate pointing out the absolute dire situation the country is in, a situation people like be have been pounding the table about for years now. I could really care less if some leftists like Rosie O'Donnell get called fat, the country has MUCH MUCH bigger problems.

Trump isn't all roses in my eyes. I still don't fully trust him, but really have no other option at this point. I am also completely mortified by his "Stop & Frisk" comments. I think he needs sit down and re-read the 4th Amendment and let it sink in. Problem is, we all know the Democrats have been the worst offenders of the Constitution in the last ~8 years so Hillary would likely be even worse overall.
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
So Trump is racist but only when it's necessary to protect US culture and a liar but only when he is unaware that he's lying.
Got it.
Click to expand...
I don't think your last two words are accurate. I'd say you have the stick by the wrong end, that's not at all what I said.
 
metalman said:
Scott Adams: Why I Switched My Endorsement from Clinton to Trump
Click to expand...
A fitting title for his blog entry would have been "I value money more than life". He previously argued he was endorsing Clinton because he was afraid for his life if he officially supported Trump. Now, he argues he finally endorses Trump because he is afraid Clinton might take away more of his money after his death. Both are ultimately flimsy arguments.

I should add that I am a long-time reader of Scott Adams´ blog. I bought several books he has recommended over the years as well as one of his own. However, over the past year, it has become obvious that he himself suffers from a strong case of "confirmation bias", which, ironically, is a topic he frequently writes about.

When Scott Adams first predicted that Donald Trump would win the nomination of the Republican party, very few people agreed with him and this continued for a very long time. Whether he realized it at the time or not, by predicting that Trump would win both the primaries and the general election ("in a landslide") he aligned his own interests with Trump´s. If Trump does win in November, he will look like a modern day Nostradamus and his reputation as an American intellectual might very well get a serious boost. However, if Trump loses, Adams will have foregone a lot of paid speaking engagements in the short term (according to him) for what turned out to be an ultimately faulty thesis.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Further to the comment above...

I don't think Trump is a liar in the same way that Hillary is. Trump may have propounded the birther "lie" for five years, for example, but was he lying? It seems to me that he earnestly believes his whoppers. Now, that may seem as unsettling in itself but I would contend it is on a less dangerous level than the kind of lies Hillary tells wherein I am sure she knows that she is telling lies but does it with a straight face and utter conviction.
Click to expand...
You are essentially arguing that a delusional person is more trustworthy than a strategic liar. I do not think a lot of people would generally agree with that, mainly because people tend to value predictability even when they would like to see transformative changes.
 
JoBBo said:
You are essentially arguing that a delusional person is more trustworthy than a strategic liar.
Click to expand...
I don't think Trump is delusional - I think he is merely wrong, but earnestly so. It seems to me that when he sees enough evidence to show that he is wrong he changes his mind (but then pretends that his new position is what he always thought - well, perhaps that is delusional or wilful lying).
I have never got that feeling from Clinton - she seems a lot more like people I have met that I know to be calculating deceivers - so that's just my experience. However, a lot of stuff has leaked lately about the sorts of things she was pushing in the state department and they are very much in line with the neo-con New American Century line of things. I hear she is touting Victoria Nuland for the new state department head. That is troubling - she was basically the manager of the Maidan revolution to overthrow the Ukraine government and she picked the new government. On the other hand I believe Trump has put forward John Bolton who is also a monster.

Still, I favour Trump principally because the establishment so viscerally hate him. They are afraid of him and, while that may make the establishment more dangerous - developments in Syria make it look as if they really want to get a war started with Russia before the elections - in the end the people effectively running the country need to be shaken loose and maybe while the old gang of crooks are fighting with a new gang of crooks the rest of us can try to grab up some of the goodies that get knocked loose while the big guys are busy fighting. If the only thing Donald can do is get Glass Stegal back that is good enough. I'd also like to see him exact petty vengeance on all the people he thinks have spurned him - maybe fill some jails and leave more room at the top for some better people.
 
JoBBo said:
A fitting title for his blog entry would have been "I value money more than life". He previously argued he was endorsing Clinton because he was afraid for his life if he officially supported Trump. Now, he argues he finally endorses Trump because he is afraid Clinton might take away more of his money after his death. Both are ultimately flimsy arguments.
Click to expand...

Scott previously said he endorsed Clinton for his "personal safety"
Now he has switched his endorsement to Trump, because the amount he would lose to Hillary's tax increases exceeds by a large amount how much he will have to spend for increased personal security
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I don't think Trump is delusional - I think he is merely wrong
Click to expand...
I was merely taking your argument to its ultimate conclusion.

That being said, we can probably all agree that, given the chances of getting elected, almost anybody who ran during the primaries can be safely called "somewhat delusional". It requires a big leap of faith and is almost guarantueed to end with public embarassment.

I think he is merely wrong but earnestly so.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Surely this is true sometimes but he frequently shows a completely "reckless" attitude towards truth. To me, he is the personification of a twisted version of Stephen Colbert´s truthiness. He does not only say what he feels is the truth (regardless of facts), he often says what he feels a large group of potential voters will feel is the truth.

It is difficult to imagine that he could earnestly believe it when he says: "African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape that they've ever been in before. Ever. Ever. Ever." Is there any semi-intelligent person in America who is not aware of its history of slavery?

I have never got that feeling from Clinton - she seems a lot more like people I have met that I know to be calculating deceivers - so that's just my experience.
Click to expand...
I am sure few people like being lied to. I know I certainly do not. But, on some level, I suppose I do appreciate when someone does me the courtesy of not assuming I am so dumb that I will just believe any lazily put together statement.

However, a lot of stuff has leaked lately about the sorts of things she was pushing in the state department and they are very much in line with the neo-con New American Century line of things. I hear she is touting Victoria Nuland for the new state department head. That is troubling - she was basically the manager of the Maidan revolution to overthrow the Ukraine government and she picked the new government. On the other hand I believe Trump has put forward John Bolton who is also a monster.
Click to expand...
With regard to foreign policy, I do not believe there is a big difference between either candidate. Trump has the "benefit" of having zero political track record so it is difficult to point to past decisions in that area that could be used against him. But any anti-interventionism statements he has made seem genuinely hollow after you see him say during the first debate with Clinton that the US should have just taken all of Iraq´s oil. In a 2011 interview, he even flat out stated that the US should have taken 1.5 trillion USD worth of oil from Iraq to reimburse the United States for the costs of massively destroying Iraq´s infrastructure (without being asked to do so).

Still, I favour Trump principally because the establishment so viscerally hate him.
Click to expand...
I think this is a misleading metric. There are some truly despicable people out there who happen to be hated by many including members of the "the establishment". Just being hated by one group does not mean they are fit to be president of a nation.

If the only thing Donald can do is get Glass Stegal back that is good enough.
Click to expand...
The life blood of Trump´s real estate businesses are loans from many domestic and foreign banks, who just happen to predominantly oppose the reintroduction of Glass-Steagall. Trump´s personal financial dependency on good relations with banks is simply less obvious than Clinton´s but that does not mean much.
 
Last edited:
JoBBo said:
I think this is a misleading metric. There are some truly despicable people out there who happen to be hated by many including members of the "the establishment". Just being hated by one group does not mean they are fit to be president of a nation.
Click to expand...

Indeed and there seems to be a fair bit of self-rationalisation going on.

I completely understand why people prefer Trump to Clinton but many of them seem to be grasping for some justification for that position that amounts to more than "anyone but Clinton" so they end up trying to paint this truly deplorable individual as some sort of good guy when he is anything but.
This is going on on TV, radio, newspapers and online, including this site and it is intriguing, if a little depressing.

Yes, Trump may well be more palatable than Clinton.
However, that does not change the fact that the man is a grade-A-arsehole with a long and well documented track record of talking utter horseshite, often couched in xenophobic or sexist language.
 
JoBBo said:
It is difficult to imagine that he could earnestly believe it when he says: "African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape that they've ever been in before. Ever. Ever. Ever." Is there any semi-intelligent person in America who is not aware of its history of slavery?
Click to expand...

Slaves weren't part of an "African-American community", slaves were property. Trump's comments are dead on. Statistically, African-American communities are worse off now then they were during Reconstruction.
 
redrumloa said:
Slaves weren't part of an "African-American community", slaves were property. Trump's comments are dead on. Statistically, African-American communities are worse off now then they were during Reconstruction.
Click to expand...

The True Black Tragedy: Illegitimacy Rate of Nearly 75%

As early as the 1880s, three-quarters of black families were two-parent. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black families were two-parent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children had the same mother and father.

Today's black illegitimacy rate of nearly 75 percent is also entirely new. In 1940, black illegitimacy stood at 14 percent. It had risen to 25 percent by 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action" and was widely condemned as a racist. By 1980, the black illegitimacy rate had more than doubled, to 56 percent, and it has been growing since.

More Black Babies Killed by Abortion Than Born

In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758), and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in the Big Apple, according to a report by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

5 Devastating Facts About Black-on-Black Crime

FACT 1. Over 1,400 more black Americans murdered other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968.

According to FBI data, 4,906 black people murdered other blacks in 2010 and 2011. That is 1,460 more black Americans killed by other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968, according to the Tuskegee Institute.

FACT 4. Chicago’s death toll is almost equal to that of both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined.

FACT 5. It would take cops 40 years to kill as many black men as have died at the hands of others black men in 2012 alone.
 
Howard Stern Catches CNN in Blatant Lie About Trump, Emails Trump to Clear the Air

Howard Stern is more than a little miffed with CNN for reporting that he confirmed Donald Trump was in favor of the Iraq War when the GOP nominee said otherwise.

“So, then there was a big screaming headline on CNN — ‘Howard Stern Now Confirms.’ There’s a picture of me and Trump […] I don’t know how CNN came up with that headline,” Stern said.

The shock jock went at CNN on Monday’s episode of “The Howard Stern Show,” insisting he did not confirm that Trump lied about where he stood on the war in Iraq.

“I said nothing new,” Stern said. “And so I emailed Trump and I wanted to explain to him that, uh, that is not what I said.”

“I will say that Donald Trump was one of the best guests we ever had because he would kind of have this stream of consciousness and was not politically correct, and so he always made for a fun guest,” Stern said. “And a lot of his stuff was in the spirit of that.”
 
Downey also thought it was great idea to smoke crack.


Who among us couldn’t accidentally hit the delete button – thirty thousand times?”
 
Trump just stated during the debate that if he is elected that he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton. :banana:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top