Page: 1 2 3 Next »

swifty

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Thu May 22, 2014, 07:45 PM
Number of posts: 6,944

Journal Archives

I don't look down on Trumpies as inherently bad.

I think they have been pushed there, very much like "Kansas Republicans" have been pushed into their folly.

Trump, yeah, I do look down on him. He's exploiting these people's pain. The fact that they have bad, self-defeating attitudes doesn't excuse their exploitation. They need leadership. They think their world is coming apart.

Hillary, like Obama, has said she wants to be a leader for all Americans. It is going to be up to her to get the middle and working class Trumpies to put down their spears. They've got this idea that Trump is going to start taking care of them when Trump even has trouble picking campaign leadership or getting a non-phony letter from his doctor. This should not be that difficult a thing for Hillary to do.

Is voter ID the mark of the beast?

I'm not big on pop eschatology, but I'm talking to the people who are. There is a cross-section of them who are both Revelations fans and fans of voter ID laws. Given that the courts are striking down these voter ID laws as lacking rational motive (and having true evil motive in some cases), are the pro-ID people who believe in the Antichrist comfortable with what looks to be their role vis-a-vis Biblical good vs. evil?

Republican defamation against America

I hope Hillary hammers Trump on his false accusation of election rigging. We simply can't have a candidate in the election who claims with no evidence whatsoever that the election might be rigged. It's disqualifying by itself. It is a deep defamation against the country Trump claims to want to make great again.

America is considered the gold standard when it comes to democracy. Trump spat in our country's face in front of the world. Now, when we try to help oversee elections in other countries we will have people quoting Trump against America.

It's similar to the way that Republicans constantly tell the world they think America or their states (or both) are business unfriendly. Dems always try to sell American products and know-how by accentuating the positive about our country. Republicans always bargain from a position that America is not a good place to do business. Who would you rather have at the bargaining table?

Hillary has a ton of upside in the debates.

The negatives against her are essentially all wrong or based on fluff. And a lot of Trump supporters are on his side only to be anti-Clinton. Once they see Clinton side-by-side with Trump, she'll have a chance to disabuse that group of its misconceptions.

Trump, on the other hand, has nothing but downside. Those against him are against him for good reason.

Here's the latest poll showing the available voters to both sides. It's basically a gold mine for Clinton.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-by-double-digits-in-new-national-poll/

Clinton should be careful about the peddling racism stuff.

I don't know that Trump is peddling racism any more than hooch vendors are peddling ethanol.

Trump is peddling "Kansas conservative common sense," i.e., a kind of dumb, self-harming selfishness. At bottom it is a kind of complex zero-sum game strategy combined with a mix of misanthropy and masochism. It's wrong. They don't know it. They don't know why. They think it is good for them. They think it is bad for someone else. They kind of like it when it goes wrong every time.

See, complicated.

It's not exactly other races they don't like. They just instinctively see the other races—and, sheesh, of course other ethnic groups in general for our picky distinctions crowd—as easier to blame and stigmatize. Also, like everyone else, they feel cheated and betrayed by the guy whose car happens to be ahead of theirs in the traffic jam.

It's hard to feel sorry for the Kansas/Trumpie type, because (per the somewhat over-simplified definition I'm using here) they are both selfish and suckers. If you feel sorry for the sucker, just remember he's selfish. If you are angry at the selfish, just remember he's a sucker and doesn't know any better. Also, as a sucker, he's there to be preyed upon. (Just ask establishment conservatives.)

If Clinton wants to attract this type, she needs to find their humanity. I'm not being hypocritical, so stop. I didn't say she needs to appeal to their better nature. She should avoid saying Trumpies are attracted to Trump by racism and bigotry, because that is essentially insulting them. Trump loves it when you call him a racist and a bigot. It makes his Trumpies mad and more bound to him. It also gives him the opportunity to pull in stooge groups of varying races, sexes, and orientations to vouch for him in photo ops so he can gull a few moderate Republican women (per NPR discussion today on Trump's problems with that group) over to the dark side.

Trump isn't a con man exactly.

Well, of course he is a con man, but that lets his followers off the hook for being merely gullible. Some of them are. But the others are much, much worse. They are con people. They know Trump is lying and is bad for the country, but they are backing him anyway. They aren't merely believing his bullshit. They are creating it with him.

These poor, desperate, (some of them) formerly good people think they aren't getting enough apples from the apple tree, so they want Trump to chop it down. They want to destroy in order to loot.

When a Trump supporter says "build the wall," he is also usually saying that the people already here who crossed the border are, in effect, wall-crossing trespassers. In other words, the wall is not just a wall but a retroactive mandate, a justification for bullying Hispanics already in the country. The Trumpies who want to act out will be emboldened to do so whether the wall is built or not, perhaps especially if the wall isn't built.

People who vote for Trump are voting for his corrupt, broken con constituents, not just the con man himself. Most of the Trumpies are really forgiving their own lies, not his, their own bad behavior, not his, and voting for themselves, not him.

Most of the relatively sane people are sick of the gridlock.

That's why an election blowout for Hillary is such a source of hope for us. Obama tried to hold out an olive branch to the Republicans, but they just couldn't accept it. They were laying on the mat looking up at the stars. Republican George W. Bush had completely destroyed the credibility of their ideology. But, unfortunately, the Republicans still had some fight left in them. They haven't been able to make any trouble thanks to Obama, but they have managed to warp their party beyond even the Hastert, DeLay, Gingrich, Bush/Cheney level.

That being the case, the voters really have no choice. The Republicans won't accept a decision or a TKO. They have to be flattened. Deep down, that's the way a lot of Republicans want it too. Vote every Republican out of every office to the maximum extent possible. We'll all be a lot better off, even them.

What did Reince Priebus showing up at a Trump rally mean?

The Dems actually have a good candidate.

The amazing thing to me is just how far the Republican "they are all the same" campaign has infiltrated our political discourse and corrupted it. Hillary is actually a damned good, sturdy, reliable presidential candidate. Donald Trump is unfit for office or intelligent company.

Yet we have Trump and Clinton both "viewed unfavorably" by most people. How is this possible, and what does it mean?

Well, what if the people who view Trump unfavorably are good people and the people who view Clinton unfavorably are either bad people or misguided? Consider it.

If that is the case, then it's wrong to say that we have two unpopular candidates. Or at least it's misleading. Unpopularity among the bad and misguided is actually a badge of honor. Roosevelt welcomed that kind of unpopularity, and so should we. Do we think that Hillary's unpopularity among racists, voting rights thieves, election gerry-rigging former George W. Bush supporters says something "bad" about her? Quite the contrary. It's reason for good people to like her.

Unpopularity is unpopularity, not a litmus test of fitness for office. Before unpopularity can be used to judge candidates we need to find a way to litmus test the people with whom a given candidate is unpopular. A negative opinion from bad or misguided people should count to the credit of the candidate judged by them.

Ok, let me get this straight about the ransom thing...

...(I thought I would start with a traditional Republican poster lead-in this time for fun.)

The Iranians pay for weapons back in the 1970s and we never deliver them. Then, the United States agrees as part of the deal that prevents Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons that the money for the non-delivered weapons will be refunded. And Iran also agrees that they will release some prisoners. So one big deal happens in which a bunch of good things happen and Iran gets back some money it was owed.

And the Republicans would have just given the Iranians the money without saying, "Hey wait a minute. Let's see the prisoners first." Because otherwise, some dumb-asses would claim that it was ransom.

It must really bother Republicans having to go to the potty and then have lunch the same day. They would see it as a connected lunch-on-the-potty.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »