President Trump: Part II

[Skeptic Ginger]

This was such a weird year. Hillary made a few verbal missteps and got raked over the coals, just like a normal politician.

Trump made a complete ass of himself over and over, and got almost as many votes, and just a few more of the ones that counted.

Add in there Trump lied his ass off and people fell for it and we'd be in rare agreement.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

The idea that virtually nobody is calling out Trump's side seems a bit blind.

I think you've wrongly assessed which side was blind.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Did you ever look at Clinton's energy or jobs policy platforms? Of course you didn't.

As for Clinton not communicating her message effectively, re-read my posts.

There is a difference between saying she didn't give a rip about XYZ and she didn't communicate the message that she did give a rip.

I suggest you re-read Bob001's posts rather than rolling your eyes and making blanket assumptions that the only reason he could possibly have for finding fault with her **literal** statements is that he knows nothing about her policies. He has focused on the impact of her statements and her inability to be sensitive to her voters. He has focused on her complete lack of reasoning in regard to how her statements would be received. That is a completely separate topic from her policies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's these sorts of derisive and insulting insinuations that completely destroy your claims to be "discussing" anything.

Can you truly not see question marks, do you not know what they mean, or is it that you can't explain or support why your answer might be 'no'?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The plot thickens on Trump's Holocaust Remembrance statement.

Not that long ago, The Trump Administration's Flirtation With Holocaust Denial

The White House’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, boasted that while at Breitbart he created a platform for alt-right. Richard Spencer, the self-proclaimed leader of the alt-right, has invited overt Holocaust deniers to alt-right conferences, and his followers have engaged in outright denial. During the campaign, he was reportedly responsible for speeches and ads that many observers concluded trafficked in anti-Semitic tropes.

The following apologetics by Priebus certainly echoes the 'all lives matter' response to blacks trying to call attention to their numbers being killed by police for minor or no crimes at all.

Priebus refused and dug in deeper, declaring “everyone’s suffering in the Holocaust, including obviously, all of the Jewish people… [was] extraordinarily sad.”

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know that this makes it any better. She lost three states by a small margin and won the popular vote seems to purposefully obfuscate the fact that she lost several states by quite large margins.

What it is about the total popular vote vs the Electoral College being two different things that you don't understand?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I suggest you re-read Bob001's posts rather than rolling your eyes and making blanket assumptions that the only reason he could possibly have for finding fault with her **literal** statements is that he knows nothing about her policies. He has focused on the impact of her statements and her inability to be sensitive to her voters. He has focused on her complete lack of reasoning in regard to how her statements would be received. That is a completely separate topic from her policies.

Here's a suggestion for you and Bob both: Find a single post of mine where I said Clinton campaigned effectively and/or got her message across well.

It's very odd you both hear something different in my posts thanwhat I said at least a half dozen times: the Clinton campaign did a poor job of countering the lies and propaganda thrown at her.

 

[chrispy]

And did he actually threaten to invade Mexico?

Or did he threaten to step in against criminals that are threatening the US, in a very similar fashion to the US entering Afghanistan to take action against Al Qaeda when the government of Afghanistan was either unable or unwilling to do so on their own? Is there a material difference in the potential for US intervention, other than the person in charge?

If you are equating Mexico with Afghanistan you are sorely mistaken in more ways than one

 

[bruto]

And did he actually threaten to invade Mexico? Or did he threaten to step in against criminals that are threatening the US, in a very similar fashion to the US entering Afghanistan to take action against Al Qaeda when the government of Afghanistan was either unable or unwilling to do so on their own? Is there a material difference in the potential for US intervention, other than the person in charge?

If what I read is true he threatened to send American troops into Mexico to do what he alleges Mexican troops cannot do. You can justify it all you want by saying how bad those hombres are, but that's kind of what invading is.

 

[qayak]

No, I didn't buy it. Coal is dying around the world because gas is cheaper and cleaner, among other reasons. And working-class whites have a long history of voting against their own interests. The point is that a more adept politician would never have handed the opposition that kind of ammunition.

Here's the facts: Donald Trump Reported this.(Just watch the first 10 seconds):



Here's what Clinton really said:



And not a single media outlet called Trump on his lies.

When you look at the tactics Trump uses and then look around for where they have been used before you only see it with dictators. They didn't start off that way, but the countries they got elected to lead soon became that way. Hitler is obvious but Chavez used the same tactics to turn Venezuela from a democracy to a dictatorship.

You are kidding yourself if you think American institutions can stop him. You have seen what he does to people in those institutions. He fires them. Every employee of the United States knows that if you disagree with Trump your career and your ability to feed your family is gone. They will fall into line just like they did for other dictators in other countries.

And anyone who tells me that Clinton wasn't the best candidate fielded by any party in recent memory gets zero respect from me. If you listen to anyone's opponent they are terrible people. You should try some facts instead of Trump's alternative facts blatant lies.

 

[Garrison]

Here's the facts: Donald Trump Reported this.(Just watch the first 10 seconds):


Here's what Clinton really said:


And not a single media outlet called Trump on his lies.

And this is the point to bear in mind when critiquing Clinton's campaign, the media seemed only to eager to latch on to the mere suggestion of impropriety when it concerned Clinton and ignore demonstrable lies/bad behaviour on the part of Trump.

Then even when the media did latch on to a story like 'pussygate' it seemed to make zero headway with influencing voters. That one thing should have been the death of Trump's campaign and yet on it rolled. I have yet to see any coherent suggestion for how Clinton could overcome that. What clever policy statement was going to take down Trump when a large body of voters were basically willing to give him a free pass and treat Clinton like the devil incarnate.

 

[Meadmaker]

100% true, and 100% irrelevant.

Clinton made a few completely disastrous verbal missteps that insulted and dismissed the people she needed to convince to vote for her.

Trump made an ass of himself over and over, but also spoke to the fears and worries that his voters had .

It's all about who felt the effect of those errors, and who perceived them as potentially being aimed at them as voters. It's about who was seen as understanding and sympathizing with their plight.

I think that's right, but it's so bizarre. Donald Trump was seen as understanding and sympathizing with their plight, but darned if I understand how he managed to pull it off. He strikes me as just the opposite.

I think it was "the enemy of my enemy" stuff. What he said didn't make any sense, but it was clear that he hated liberals, and so did they, so he won.

 

[Sabrina]

And did he actually threaten to invade Mexico?

Or did he threaten to step in against criminals that are threatening the US, in a very similar fashion to the US entering Afghanistan to take action against Al Qaeda when the government of Afghanistan was either unable or unwilling to do so on their own? Is there a material difference in the potential for US intervention, other than the person in charge?

Afghanistan was at the time we invaded them a hostile nation to the US. That generally allows for sending troops in the event such becomes necessary, according to most interpretations of international warfare. Mexico, on the other hand, is our third largest trading partner and an important ally. Generally speaking, it's extremely bad form, politically, to threaten to invade a country that you have no major issues with. Mexico is a mere blip on the radar in terms of a threat to United States interests, in contrast to countries like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran (the big 4). And yes, telling the president of a sovereign nation that you'd send troops into his country without asking first is threatening to invade them. We have no SOFA with Mexico, to my knowledge, and they have not asked for our presence there. Sending troops into the country without real provocation (criminal activity along the border notwithstanding, since it is not the job of our military to intervene in criminal activity) is therefore a fairly severe violation of Mexico's sovereignty and could be considered an act of war. That clear up the difference for you?

 

[bruto]

I think to speak of the whole thing one must kind of remember what words mean. An invasion is what it is, whether it's right or wrong. When Allied forces landed in Normandy on D-Day, they invaded. Good on them, but that's what they did. If you send troops into a country that has not asked for them, you are invading. What else could you call it?

oh, edit to add, I suppose you could pull a Nixon and call it an "incursion." If you're nostalgic for Tricky
Dick, you can give it a try, but I don't think it fooled many even back then.

 

[Bob001]

Here's the facts: Donald Trump Reported this.(Just watch the first 10 seconds):



Here's what Clinton really said:



And not a single media outlet called Trump on his lies.

I get it. I knew what Clinton really said. I even posted a link from Mother Jones that quoted her in context and included your video. My point -- and I repeat it -- is that nobody with any political sense would have said "We're going to put [you] out of business..." She could easily have said something like "As the world shifts to other energy sources, I want West Virginia to be a leader. I want every worker in West Virginia to have a great job in the new 21st century industries...." Etc. But she didn't. Why give the opposition a juicy sound bite?
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2016/03/hillary-clinton-will-probably-regret-comment

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The key falling of self-declared 'reasonable' Trump voters is that they didn't mind who else was on their side: having the KKK, Alt-rights and Putin all supporting your candidate should have made them pause and think long and hard about whether they know something about your candidate you don't.

Yes, you can differentiate between hardcore supporters and lukewarm anti-Clinton votes, but in the end they accepted standing with racists/fascist/sexists for Trump.

 

[Minoosh]

Uh, I voted for Hilary.
She was not ideal because she seemed to have a totally deaf ear when it came to the blue collar/rural voters she needed to win in the Rust Belt.

Even The New Yorker called her unconnected in a crucial way, months before the election - and even she knew it.

For sheer random amusement, I enjoyed the article that said Trump's doctor apparently told the public without permission that Trump takes an anti-hair-loss drug. He also said Trump has all his hair. That seems like a tautology to me. Some may have fallen out, but what's left is all his hair.

He briefly had a much better look. The overstated fringe was pared back and the color became something close to silver. He must have thought it made him look old, but I thought he looked good, relatively speaking. Maybe I can find a picture.

 

[varwoche]

I feel at a loss for a way to fight back against this lying, inept, autocratic whackjob. The notion of the entire sane (and semi-sane) world unifying to boycott all things Trump / Trump-related has certain appeal. The boycott would include Trump's businesses of course, Trump branded products, stores that sell Trump products, companies that advertise on Breitbart, etc.

#GrabYourWallet

 

[Bob001]

.....
For sheer random amusement, I enjoyed the article that said Trump's doctor apparently told the public without permission that Trump takes an anti-hair-loss drug. He also said Trump has all his hair. That seems like a tautology to me. Some may have fallen out, but what's left is all his hair.

He briefly had a much better look. The overstated fringe was pared back and the color became something close to silver. He must have thought it made him look old, but I thought he looked good, relatively speaking. Maybe I can find a picture.

The late lamented Gawker contended that Trump had a hair weave:
http://gawker.com/is-donald-trump-s-hair-a-60-000-weave-a-gawker-invest-1777581357

Someone else contended it might be a hair transplant:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gawker-donald-trump-hair-not-weave-article-1.2650804

But whatever it is, there's no explanation for why a 70-year-old man wants to go out in the world looking like that.

 

[Minoosh]

I have yet to see any coherent suggestion for how Clinton could overcome that.

Slightly higher Democratic turnout would have done it. She needed to go to those states and mix with people. Hosted barbecues, or something. How much of that was feasible in the relevant time frame, I don't know.

The Republicans had an ad on craigslist offering $17 an hour to temporary workers to talk to people about the importance of voting. Dems had nothing similar that I saw. Bear in mind, there are rather a lot of white, underemployed conservatives who would be happy for that small earning opportunity. Also some white, underemployed liberals who could have used some extra cash.

What clever policy statement was going to take down Trump when a large body of voters were basically willing to give him a free pass and treat Clinton like the devil incarnate.

There isn't one. But a strong push to fire up Democrats to vote might have done some good. The narrative that Trump brought in droves of disaffected whites is only partly true. Obama supporters did not turn out for Hillary and I don't think Beyonce did her much good. This is all hindsight, of course.