US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

[Fez]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So is Trump actually trying to sabotage his campaign and lose without becoming a "loser", or not? I've heard a few people suggest that's what's in Trump's mind because he never wanted to and doesn't want to have to actually do the job.

He definitely wants to win, but he doesn't want the job. If he did win, Pence probably would be President in all but name. It came out last night that Trump has cancelled his events in Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon this week; with no explanation why. I suspect its because he's finally feeling, physically and mentally, the toll of running for President; and unlike every other major party nominee in history, including Clinton, he can't motivate himself to keep going by thinking back to the reasons why he's running. Because he has no reasons, besides ego; and that only gets you so far.

 

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He could very well be making an excuse in advance of losing the election, but the article I linked went a step further by saying that a few people close to Trump think he actually believes the election is rigged. And I believe that if the latter is true, it's more likely that Trump will not given a traditional concession speech which could prove to be extremely problematic if not flat out dangerous. He's already damaging the legitimacy of our electoral process and god knows what will happen if he denies Clinton a peaceful transition of power. 

I'd bet very heavily that Trump won't give a concession speech. I don't think he'll actually call for violence, but I think he'll either lament that he couldn't overcome 'Crooked Hillary' or doesn't directly reference the election results at all. Or maybe he doesn't give any sort of speech, I could see that too.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

42 minutes ago, Equilibrium said:

Obama got it worse, OK

War crimes, like US doesn't engage in war crimes right now, Guantanamo is one huge war crime that everyone lets US slide since US is the big boy. Then whole US concept of collateral damage in bombings, drone strikes etc. I read about war crimes in those prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, and if you think there aren't more abominable things that are classified you are wrong. US already has a border walls, so do many other countries, it's not that useful and neither is banning of Muslims as terrorist can change his name deck himself in crosses and pass, but those are more stupid then fascistic ideas, and with some refinement maybe they can produce some results. But I don't want to defend Trump's policy, and attacking Trump's policy is fine when he says stupid stuff.

I am talking about vicious, offensive ad hominem attacks launched on Trump, calling him mentally sick or deficient, psychopath, dictator, Nazi. Allegations about his corruption, about his connections with criminals, Russians and who not. They labeled him rapist and pedophile, without the shred of evidence, busted on snopes.com. They attack and insult his advisors, slander them, insult Trump's family. Are those Democrats you want, is that how social justice party should win the elections, which they have been doing from day one, so it's not all just desperate act, Clinton is clear favorite there is no need for all this, yet it is integral part of the discourse.

Everyone who has any qualms about Clinton is labeled stupid, naive or malicious, shut up and vote Clinton or it's Armageddon. I have no horse in the race, I don't hate Hillary, I am appealed that better and progressive American party chooses to win elections not by excellent platform but by saying that the opponent is pedophile. 

Hillary isn't corrupt, no she is not says Dems, if she was court would pronounce her guilty, but Trump though he is pedophile, no matter that court didn't pronounce him guilty, and ignoring the fact that it's easier for high government official to skirt corruption charges then it is for a media personality to avoid pedophilia conviction. That is Repub logic there, and that is how they think and if you think it's true and polite because it's on Huff or WaPo and not on Fox you are wrong, same Repubs you hate think the exact opposite. It's not just dirty tricks some Dems use, it is also highest level of hypocrisy.

 

Nazi is an exaggeration, but the rest is based soundly on the way he acts. He has repeatedly praised strongman dictators (even before he ran for President. He praised the Tiananmen massacre in the early 90s), demonstrated no regard for the norms of representative democracy (stating the only way he can lose a state his party hasn't won in decades is if there's voter fraud, heavily implied that a sitting president should be assassinated). He has had connections with the mob, and has pretty much openly stated that he'd use his presidency to help his business interests (for example, that he'd bring Trump University back if elected, refused to put his assets in a blind trust, or release his tax returns). His advisors do suck. Lewandowski did assault a reporter, and Manafort did funnel off the books money from Ukraine to DC lobbying firms. As for his family, I mean there have been attacks, but not really from the Left. Most progressives (on this board or Jezebel, or Slate) don't give a shit that Melania posed nude at some point. Most people don't take the pedophilia charges seriously. Hell even Gawker refused to run with it. The rapist thing sounds more plausible, but the story mostly died down. Regardless, he does have a long history of at least sexually harassing female employees.

My point is that people may be exageratting how bad Trump is, but not by much. He may not be a Nazi or Putin stooge, but he openly supported Putin's crackdown on journalists, supported China's massacre at Tienanmen, and openly wished that Putin would commit espionage on the US. He may not immediately launch nukes at everyone, but he did state that he'd target the families of terrorists and has shown no regard for the nuclear taboo. He may not be stupid, but he has shown no effort in actually learning about policy and position he is campagining for. And that's on top of all the racism, desire to violate free press, incitement of political violence and all that other stuff.

It's not about partisanship. Trump is dangerously unqualified, in terms of temperament, knowledge, and experience for the Presidency of the United States in a way that no candidate I can even remember was. Hell even Goldwater served as a US Senator and had some idea what he was talking about.

[ummester]

14 minutes ago, Equilibrium said:

That is what I get for trying to get people to take on another perspective, one of the outsider, who isn't part of partisan politics and who doesn't have anything to gain. Few well intentioned commentaries that in no what dismiss what Trump and Reps said and done.

My comments get dismissed, misinterpreted, people imagine some subtext of theirs to then attack instead of reading closely.

A strange thing has happened with the group that calls itself the 'progressive left' in the US, they are now more authoritarian than many conservative groups - asserting this authority by way faux guilt creation. They attempt to discredit by accusation of some vast social injustice. It's quite sad to see a country as strong as the US was fall victim to such triviality. And they aren't even left  Well, Bernie was - but the rest of them aren't - their just capitalists that pretend they care and try to make you feel bad if you don't agree.

You are and always were entitled to believe whatever you chose and cannot be shamed otherwise, even though I do not agree with your take in the status of Western civilisation

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

17 minutes ago, ummester said:

I care not for your parties and their strange definitions like GOP

The system is the issue - the system of individualism, consumerism and extreme capitalism that the US has been nurturing for at least 30 if not more years. From a minimum of the 80s, when financial regulation was removed. That system has to collapse, just like in did in the 30s, so that regulation (strong regulation) can be put back in pace, for the betterment of the whole planet.

And this is why I prefer Trump - because he is stupid enough to make this happen quickly, rather than kick the can for another 16 to 20 years.

You have no idea how much worse things can bes, do you? Detroit, as bad as it is, is nowhere near rock bottom. Rock bottom is Berlin or Tokyo in 1945, pretty much all of China from 1920-1950s, it's Rwanda in 1990, it's Raqqa and Mosul now.

[ummester]

1 minute ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

You have no idea how much worse things can bes, do you? Detroit, as bad as it is, is nowhere near rock bottom. Rock bottom is Berlin or Tokyo in 1945, pretty much all of China from 1920-1950s, it's Rwanda in 1990, it's Raqqa and Mosul now.

I have idea how worse things can be, trust me - and I know the longer you wait to turn a bad situation around the worse the eventual bust gets. Pain is always best dealt with quickly.

[sologdin]

doubtful that a trump presidency will result in strong regulation?

[ummester]

Just now, sologdin said:

doubtful that a trump presidency will result in strong regulation?

No - it wont but it should hasten collapse which would result in strong regulation.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

2 minutes ago, ummester said:

A strange thing has happened with the group that calls itself the 'progressive left' in the US, they are now more authoritarian than many conservative groups - asserting this authority by way faux guilt creation. They attempt to discredit by accusation of some vast social injustice. It's quite sad to see a country as strong as the US was fall victim to such triviality. And they aren't even left  Well, Bernie was - but the rest of them aren't - their just capitalists that pretend they care and try to make you feel bad if you don't agree.

You are and always were entitled to believe whatever you chose and cannot be shamed otherwise, even though I do not agree with your take in the status of Western civilisation

I'm a pretty vocal critic of identity politics, appeals to "privilege" as a means for shutting down discussion, and the many other excesses of the progressive left. 

That being said, just because the left is wrong on some issues, doesn't mean the left is wrong on all issues. And the left is not wrong on Trump. You are wrong. Equilibrium is wrong. And the evidence is how bad your arguments are and how good the arguments are against you. There is not even an attempt at a substantive rebuttal in either of your posts. It's just whinging and complaining about how marginalized your viewpoints are. I get it, I really do. It feels bad when nobody acknowledges your brilliance. On rare occasion, someone fails to acknowledge mine, even though I'm obviously right about everything. But not you two. Nope, on this one, you're both just wrong. 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So is Trump actually trying to sabotage his campaign and lose without becoming a "loser", or not? I've heard a few people suggest that's what's in Trump's mind because he never wanted to and doesn't want to have to actually do the job.

No. Actually sabotaging his campaign would be simple. He just needs to take some view that will alienate his core support without really broadening his appeal to people already lost to him. For example, it's not hard to think of positions on gay marriage, abortion or guns that Trump could take that would piss off his existing supporters but not please anyone else either.

Trump wants to win. He'd never have started this if he didn't. Does he want to do the work? That's a different question.

[ummester]

1 minute ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I'm a pretty vocal critic of identity politics, appeals to "privilege" as a means for shutting down discussion, and the many other excesses of the progressive left. 

That being said, just because the left is wrong on some issues, doesn't mean the left is wrong on all issues. And the left is not wrong on Trump. You are wrong. Equilibrium is wrong. And the evidence is how bad your arguments are and how good the arguments are against you. There is not even an attempt at a substantive rebuttal in either of your posts. It's just whinging and complaining about how marginalized your viewpoints are. I get it, I really do. It feels bad when nobody acknowledges your brilliance. On rare occasion, someone fails to acknowledge mine, even though I'm obviously right about everything. But not you two. Nope, on this one, you're both just wrong. 

Well, done - you proved exactly my point with your 'rebuttal'. Hint, what you are doing is bitching, not debating.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, sologdin said:

doubtful that a trump presidency will result in strong regulation?

I would at least expect most journalism sources to be very heavily regulated.

[sologdin]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

I would at least expect most journalism sources to be very heavily regulated.

and free movement of dark-complected persons.

[TerraPrime]

18 minutes ago, ummester said:

No - it wont but it should hasten collapse which would result in strong regulation.

 

... because you say it will?

What is "strong regulation" anyway and why is it desirable?

 

[ummester]

8 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

 

... because you say it will?

What is "strong regulation" anyway and why is it desirable?

 

Strong regulation existed between WW2 and the 80s - it was a little different in every Western country. In US I think it meant a certain separation between the interests of the investment banks and lenders, as well as investment strategy being watched closely by government officials. In Australia we a a national bank (government owned) which set regulatory standards for the private banks. However it was implemented, it was the basic idea of the government making sure investment, debt creation etc was within reasonable limits that ensured a more stable relationship between financial markets and society. Greed wasn't always good.

Oh, I only hope it will - no-one knows anything about the future for certain, do they?

[TerraPrime]

2 minutes ago, ummester said:

Strong regulation existed between WW2 and the 80s - it was a little different in every Western country. In US I think it meant a certain separation between the interests of the investment banks and lenders, as well as investment strategy being watched closely by government officials. In Australia we a a national bank (government owned) which set regulatory standards for the private banks. However it was implemented, it was the basic idea of the government making sure investment, debt creation etc was within reasonable limits that ensured a more stable relationship between financial markets and society. Greed wasn't always good.

Oh, I only hope it will - no-one knows anything about the future for certain, do they?

So, stronger monetary and financial regulations.

And we need to destroy the whole U.S. government structure and burn it to the ground to maybe, perhaps, if we're lucky, get it?

Is that your proposal?

[ummester]

Just now, TerraPrime said:

So, stronger monetary and financial regulations.

And we need to destroy the whole U.S. government structure and burn it to the ground to get it?

Is that your proposal?

Pretty much, though burn the government to ground is harsh.  The government has sold out, it's already locked in a relationship with the big financial players that it can't break without breaking itself. Don't worry, although I don't think it's quite as far along, mine's half sold out also. What needs to happen is for the relationship between governments, corporations and the financial sector to be collapsed, so a new relationship can be initiated -  the government itself doesn't have to collapse but it's a little delicate to accomplish otherwise now - like separating Siamese twins.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

23 minutes ago, mormont said:

No. Actually sabotaging his campaign would be simple. He just needs to take some view that will alienate his core support without really broadening his appeal to people already lost to him. For example, it's not hard to think of positions on gay marriage, abortion or guns that Trump could take that would piss off his existing supporters but not please anyone else either.

 

Isn't he doing exactly that with his half-arsed backpeddling on mass deportations? Afterall that was his core message. Vote me! Me strong on immigration!

Though I agree, that Trump wants to win this popularity contest and the title of President of the United States, just not the actual job. 

[sologdin]

i can't tell if the proposal is a far right jeremiad contra finance capital or reckless ultraleft disregard for the lived lives of actually existing human persons.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

49 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'd bet very heavily that Trump won't give a concession speech. I don't think he'll actually call for violence, but I think he'll either lament that he couldn't overcome 'Crooked Hillary' or doesn't directly reference the election results at all. Or maybe he doesn't give any sort of speech, I could see that too.

He doesn't have to directly call for violence for violence to ensue. I don't think it's likely, but he's already done it before in both vague and direct ways so you cannot rule it out as a possibility. And frankly, he doesn't even have to do that. What do you think could happen if he goes on T.V. and says that Hillary illegally stole the election? 

[Fez]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He doesn't have to directly call for violence for violence to ensue. I don't think it's likely, but he's already done it before in both vague and direct ways so you cannot rule it out as a possibility. And frankly, he doesn't even have to do that. What do you think could happen if he goes on T.V. and says that Hillary illegally stole the election? 

It depends on what exactly he says and what other Republican officials say in response. I know they haven't done anything all cycle, but if its now post-election and Trump is now a 'known loser,' I think they'd be more inclined to push back against Trump.

And as for Trump, while I strongly believe he won't properly concede, I think there's no telling what he will actually say. He could easily do his version of Sanders post-California, and only speak in terms of the need to continue to push for important issues without referencing the election at all.