Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[CapelDodger]

You are missing the obvious: that was his best attempt at faking it.

That does point to Trump not being a psychopath. They're often very good at faking it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well played.

For that, I will toss on some Hillary hate.

Libertarians reject the great man theory of politics. Trump thinks he is the greatest man. So that is obvious a conflict. Clinton has a great man problem herself. At 70, she thought she was the only Democrat that could do the job. She lacks the self perception to think of her baggage and to have groomed and backed a successor. Trump and Clinton are unfortunately alike.

 

[Fudbucker]

Instead of answering you post a link (no quote) to a Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence "scorecard" rating the effectiveness of state gun laws and how they impact (or seem to impact) gun death rates. This doesn't answer my question -- I wanted to find out what exactly you consider "extreme gun laws" to be -- but let's just let it go.

"Extreme gun laws" shouldn't be in quotes. I never said that. I was talking about restrictions that are extreme.

My view is that states that have extreme restrictions are states the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has given a "A" rating. They are almost all blue states. Sates with loose restrictions (an "F" rating) are almost all red states.

An example of what I consider an "extreme restriction" is California's high capacity magazine clip ban. It's a feel-good measure that won't solve anything.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For that, I will toss on some Hillary hate.

Libertarians reject the great man theory of politics. Trump thinks he is the greatest man. So that is obvious a conflict. Clinton has a great man problem herself. At 70, she thought she was the only Democrat that could do the job. She lacks the self perception to think of her baggage and to have groomed and backed a successor. Trump and Clinton are unfortunately alike.

So you have all this insight into Clinton?

Forgive me if I think your fanciful conclusion lacks a connection to reality.

 

[CapelDodger]

Originally by Fudbucker (quote button not working )

Like Iraq, this is another Trump liability Clinton can't fully exploit. Back in 2007, Clinton's senior strategist, Mark Penn, wrote a detailed memo about portraying Obama as an "other":

"The idea of going after Obama’s otherness dates back to the last presidential election—and to Democrats. Long before Trump started in, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, recognized this potential vulnerability in Obama and sought to exploit it.

In a March 2007 memo to Clinton (that later found its way to me), Penn wrote: “All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting it in a new light,” he wrote. “Save it for 2050. It also exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.”

Penn also suggested how the campaign might take advantage of this. “Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century,” he advised Clinton. “And talk about the basic bargain as about [sic] the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child, and that drive you today.” He went on: “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t … Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds [of campaign events].”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...rther-movement

The fact that Penn would write this memo to Clinton implies Penn thought there was some chance she would go along with it. I bet they had some interesting discussions about it.

Mark Penn is a political strategist. A son-of-bitch well versed in the Dark Arts of persuasion. And not just any old son-of-a-bitch - he was at the top of his field at the time.

Of course he came out with stuff like this. There's no evidence it was acted on, and he came out with the stuff which was. Even Penn didn't suggest de-legitimising Obama not just as a candidate but as a citizen. There's no mention of a secret birth overseas for nefarious reasons never explained, just reference to real stuff. Real stuff which Obama was playing to his benefit. Penn never suggested fabricating a controversy.

I'm afraid I have to call false equivalence on this.

Penn identified the problem to Clinton, presented this solution, and Clinton didn't bite. She went the "experience and qualification" route and lost - but lost honourably.

That, of course, was the primary campaign. Come the Presidential campaign, Karl Rove comes on the field, and the filth and fabrication really start flowing. Penn might be an exceptional son-of-a-bitch, but Rove is Cthulhu. There is no equivalence.

Trump is, of course, nothing.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So you have all this insight into Clinton?

Forgive me if I think your fanciful conclusion lacks a connection to reality.

Her choice to run makes her unqualified for the job.

 

[CapelDodger]

For that, I will toss on some Hillary hate.

Libertarians reject the great man theory of politics. Trump thinks he is the greatest man. So that is obvious a conflict. Clinton has a great man problem herself. At 70, she thought she was the only Democrat that could do the job. She lacks the self perception to think of her baggage and to have groomed and backed a successor. Trump and Clinton are unfortunately alike.

False equivalence. Both have ambition, and both have a high opinion of themselves, but there similarity ends. Clinton's opinion has some justification, and she really thinks she can do some good in the job. Trump ... well we all know what Trump is and what he's all about.

I'm not going to suggest that Hillary Clinton's opinion of herself is entirely justified, but there is a good argument for her being President for the next four years. She knows lots of people who matter and they know her, she's capable of reading those people well, she's not naive, and she's not deluded enough to think that everything is about the US and the US could be the arbiter of everything if it only had the will.

Oops, wrong thread, this should be about Trump ...

Trump and his Trumpets, bless 'em, do think the US could - and should - be the arbiter of everything if its leaders only had the will. If the Middle East is a mess it's because it was allowed to get that way, and it was Obama and Hillary Clinton who allowed it. Trump will end it, and how? Through the Triumph Of His Will.

 

[CapelDodger]

Her choice to run makes her unqualified for the job.

That's the eternal conundrum but the job needs doing and somebody needs to do it. They always need watching, though.

 

[CapelDodger]

"Extreme gun laws" shouldn't be in quotes. I never said that. I was talking about restrictions that are extreme.

How do you feel about extreme guns? Is a 50-cal for home protection too much? About right? A bit pansy?

There's a lot of things I love about living in the UK, and we're touching on one right now. Sure I've lost my freedom, but I've got my free bus-pass and they'll have to prise that out of my cold dead hands.

 

[CapelDodger]

Libertarians reject the great man theory of politics.

And aspire to an "everyperson a great person" society. Commendable but inherently unstable, in my opinion.

 

[Fudbucker]

Originally by Fudbucker (quote button not working )


Mark Penn is a political strategist. A son-of-bitch well versed in the Dark Arts of persuasion. And not just any old son-of-a-bitch - he was at the top of his field at the time.

Of course he came out with stuff like this. There's no evidence it was acted on, and he came out with the stuff which was. Even Penn didn't suggest de-legitimising Obama not just as a candidate but as a citizen. There's no mention of a secret birth overseas for nefarious reasons never explained, just reference to real stuff. Real stuff which Obama was playing to his benefit. Penn never suggested fabricating a controversy.

I'm afraid I have to call false equivalence on this.

Penn identified the problem to Clinton, presented this solution, and Clinton didn't bite. She went the "experience and qualification" route and lost - but lost honourably.

That, of course, was the primary campaign. Come the Presidential campaign, Karl Rove comes on the field, and the filth and fabrication really start flowing. Penn might be an exceptional son-of-a-bitch, but Rove is Cthulhu. There is no equivalence.

Trump is, of course, nothing.

Politics is brutal, I know, but still, Clinton would be better off if that memo didn't exist.

 

[phiwum]

Politics is brutal, I know, but still, Clinton would be better off if that memo didn't exist.

Perhaps, but that memo is hardly evidence of a Clinton campaign/birtherism connection. A suggestion that one paints Obama as not quite as American as apple pie is a long way from claims he's not a citizen at all.

 

[BobTheCoward]

False equivalence. Both have ambition, and both have a high opinion of themselves, but there similarity ends. Clinton's opinion has some justification, and she really thinks she can do some good in the job. Trump ... well we all know what Trump is and what he's all about.

I'm not going to suggest that Hillary Clinton's opinion of herself is entirely justified, but there is a good argument for her being President for the next four years. She knows lots of people who matter and they know her, she's capable of reading those people well, she's not naive, and she's not deluded enough to think that everything is about the US and the US could be the arbiter of everything if it only had the will.

Oops, wrong thread, this should be about Trump ...

Trump and his Trumpets, bless 'em, do think the US could - and should - be the arbiter of everything if its leaders only had the will. If the Middle East is a mess it's because it was allowed to get that way, and it was Obama and Hillary Clinton who allowed it. Trump will end it, and how? Through the Triumph Of His Will.

Her unfavorables are worse and they were terrible before she ran. Trump was not predicted. I really think her decision to run under those conditions is disqualifying.

 

[Fudbucker]

Perhaps, but that memo is hardly evidence of a Clinton campaign/birtherism connection. A suggestion that one paints Obama as not quite as American as apple pie is a long way from claims he's not a citizen at all.

Sure, but it prevents her from really walloping Trump on the birther issue. Spin it however you like, it was still her senior adviser sending her a memo about how to make Obama look un-American because of his multi-cultural background.

I'm sure if she could make that memo go away by snapping her fingers, she would do so, which means it's damaging. At best it's an unwelcome distraction from the Trump birther issue. At worst, it pins the birther nonsense squarely on Clinton's campaign in 07. I don't subscribe to the latter view, but I don't doubt at least some undecideds who look into this will. And quite a few will assume she would have gone "birther" except for strategy reasons.

Mark Penn is a bastard, but what's the old saying? Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas? She chose to have Penn as her senior adviser...

 

[CapelDodger]

Politics is brutal, I know, but still, Clinton would be better off if that memo didn't exist.

There'd just be more of some other irrelevancy promoted to an "issue".

You know that thing called democracy, that principle for which people have striven and sacrificed over so many generations? That praiseworthy concept?

Here it is in practice. Makes you wonder why anybody bothered, doesn't it?

 

[Molinaro]

Why elected officials when that wasn't my argument? Why can't I just point you to posts on Democratic underground?

Then if we can point you to a post from any Republican supporter who is saying something crazy that means any Republican elected to office will do that crazy thing first chance they get?

That is how ridiculously absurd of an argument you are making.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Then if we can point you to a post from any Republican supporter who is saying something crazy that means any Republican elected to office will do that crazy thing first chance they get?

That is how ridiculously absurd of an argument you are making.

Hey! I didn't have any additional argument that the majority favoring gun confiscation are Democrats. That was the only point I was arguing for. No more, no less.

 

[CapelDodger]

Her unfavorables are worse and they were terrible before she ran. Trump was not predicted. I really think her decision to run under those conditions is disqualifying.

She shouldn't have run because an unpredicted Trump emerged? How does that work?

Are you suggesting she should have withdrawn after the Trump thing did emerge? Is this because she's a woman and he's way more man than she should ever have thought to challenge?

 

[CapelDodger]

Hey! I didn't have any additional argument that the majority favoring gun confiscation are Democrats. That was the only point I was arguing for. No more, no less.

So you actually had nothing to say and spent a long time coming round to saying so.

Some of us have noticed the pattern.

 

[BobTheCoward]

She shouldn't have run because an unpredicted Trump emerged? How does that work?

Are you suggesting she should have withdrawn after the Trump thing did emerge? Is this because she's a woman and he's way more man than she should ever have thought to challenge?

I wasn't clear. The only reason. Hee unfavorables haven't sunk her campaign is because Trump is the only person with worse. Since that was not predicted, she ran with the greatest general election unfavorables. That is irresponsible to a disqualifying level.