US Elections: My religion Trumps yours

[flying mosquito]

It seems all so weird, from the outside... Where I live we have our share of corrupt, false, messianic, power-hungry, unreliable and stupid politicians, but nothing so bizarre. It would be fun if it weren't scary. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

This to me is the biggest difference between the two less than inspiring Presidential candidates.

Love him or hate him, I believe Trump believes what he says. Regardless of whether I agree with certain policies, and despite the fact that he's clearly an A-hole, I truly believe that he believes, that what he wants to do is absolutely in the best interest of the country. There's a certain level of ethics and sincerity in that.

With Hillary, I don't believe anything she says. Nothing. I don't think even she knows what she stands for. She can't even decide who she is, when she addresses NYC she sounds like a New York Jew, if she's in Georgia she drawls like a southern belle. Pandering is par for the course for all politicians but she raises it to an art form. I guess I believe her when she tells me she's a woman, but with her, the truth stops there.

But Trump shoots from the hip and changes positions on the fly.  How can you trust him to do anything when it depends on his mood?  He may be "honest" but it is a vacuous and shallow honest that feeds into his own narcissicism.

[Rory Snow]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But Trump shoots from the hip and changes positions on the fly.  How can you trust him to do anything when it depends on his mood?  He may be "honest" but it is a vacuous and shallow honest that feeds into his own narcissicism.

Who said anything about trusting him? Neither can be trusted but at least he believes in what he's saying. Hillary's sole focus is to be President, not to lead, not to improve anything, but to be President and she's proven she's more than willing to lie, cheat, steal & change accents to do it. Trump at least truly wants to make things better. Can he? Who knows. Some things will improve, others won't. But I don't think the country can survive 4-8 years of the Hillary 'I'm a woman in the White House' tour. She's just trying to make her mark on history, the country needs much more than that right now.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

33 minutes ago, Rory Snow said:

Who said anything about trusting him? Neither can be trusted but at least he believes in what he's saying. Hillary's sole focus is to be President, not to lead, not to improve anything, but to be President and she's proven she's more than willing to lie, cheat, steal & change accents to do it. Trump at least truly wants to make things better. Can he? Who knows. Some things will improve, others won't. But I don't think the country can survive 4-8 years of the Hillary 'I'm a woman in the White House' tour. She's just trying to make her mark on history, the country needs much more than that right now.

But he cannot be trusted to not change his mind on a whim.  So, what good does his "honesty" do you?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

7 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

This to me is the biggest difference between the two less than inspiring Presidential candidates.

Love him or hate him, I believe Trump believes what he says. Regardless of whether I agree with certain policies, and despite the fact that he's clearly an A-hole, I truly believe that he believes, that what he wants to do is absolutely in the best interest of the country. There's a certain level of ethics and sincerity in that.

With Hillary, I don't believe anything she says. Nothing. I don't think even she knows what she stands for. She can't even decide who she is, when she addresses NYC she sounds like a New York Jew, if she's in Georgia she drawls like a southern belle. Pandering is par for the course for all politicians but she raises it to an art form. I guess I believe her when she tells me she's a woman, but with her, the truth stops there.

How can he possibly mean what he says when he contradicts what said earlier in his speech?

[Jaxom 1974]

7 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

This to me is the biggest difference between the two less than inspiring Presidential candidates.

Love him or hate him, I believe Trump believes what he says. Regardless of whether I agree with certain policies, and despite the fact that he's clearly an A-hole, I truly believe that he believes, that what he wants to do is absolutely in the best interest of the country. There's a certain level of ethics and sincerity in that.

With Hillary, I don't believe anything she says. Nothing. I don't think even she knows what she stands for. She can't even decide who she is, when she addresses NYC she sounds like a New York Jew, if she's in Georgia she drawls like a southern belle. Pandering is par for the course for all politicians but she raises it to an art form. I guess I believe her when she tells me she's a woman, but with her, the truth stops there.

 

49 minutes ago, Rory Snow said:

Who said anything about trusting him? Neither can be trusted but at least he believes in what he's saying. Hillary's sole focus is to be President, not to lead, not to improve anything, but to be President and she's proven she's more than willing to lie, cheat, steal & change accents to do it. Trump at least truly wants to make things better. Can he? Who knows. Some things will improve, others won't. But I don't think the country can survive 4-8 years of the Hillary 'I'm a woman in the White House' tour. She's just trying to make her mark on history, the country needs much more than that right now.

 

Wow. Both statements. I'd take the opposite 100% view.  To think Hilary Clinton is just looking fir a feather in her cap and has no interest in leading? That's...an interesting interpretation of the actual situation.  There is ZERO things that come from Trump that should lead one to believe he wants to lead, let alone knows how to.  

To think that Clinton wants anything less than what is actually good for the country, but think Trump does? That's a horrible read of the situation. I get people want to believe that, but his track record suggests anything but his own self serving self interests is his main priority.

I get that the policies and ideas coming from Clinton can be disagreed with, but that's when both sides of the aisle are supposed to come together and actually talk about the policies and make compromises to come to an accord. You know, what Republicans should have been doing for the last eight years with Obama...

Trump presents a face that says he won't actually work with either side, despite what he says.

People are going to believe what they want. But my opinion and observation on most people backing Clinton says that while they're capable of being skeptical of aspects of her nature (hey, she's a politician), they're not above calling her out on things (i.e. she didn't do anything illegal with the email nor did she likely intend to, but she should have handled it better and it's expected she'll have to step up her game in that aspect). Where as a Trump die hard refuses to actually listen to reason.  Someone I know, when presented with a list of lies told by Trump, spent a great deal of time pulling up partisan articles on why the said non partisan website used to fact check was, in fact, a liberal front.  It's all tin foil hat time with die hard Trump people. Look at the plagiarism from Monday, spending a lot of time trying to blame Hillary for it to deflect the actual issue: that the Trump campaign is not as organized as a Presidential campaign should be.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

1 minute ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

 

Wow. Both statements. I'd take the opposite 100% view.  To think Hilary Clinton is just looking fir a feather in her cap and has no interest in leading? That's...an interesting interpretation of the actual situation.  There is ZERO things that come from Trump that should lead one to believe he wants to lead, let alone knows how to.  

To think that Clinton wants anything less than what is actually good for the country, but think Trump does? That's a horrible read of the situation. I get people want to believe that, but his track record suggests anything but his own self serving self interests is his main priority.

I get that the policies and ideas coming from Clinton can be disagreed with, but that's when both sides of the aisle are supposed to come together and actually talk about the policies and make compromises to come to an accord. You know, what Republicans should have been doing for the last eight years with Obama...

Trump presents a face that says he won't actually work with either side, despite what he says.

People are going to believe what they want. But my opinion and observation on most people backing Clinton says that while they're capable of being skeptical of aspects of her nature (hey, she's a politician), they're not above calling her out on things (i.e. she didn't do anything illegal with the email nor did she likely intend to, but she should have handled it better and it's expected she'll have to step up her game in that aspect). Where as a Trump die hard refuses to actually listen to reason.  Someone I know, when presented with a list of lies told by Trump, spent a great deal of time pulling up partisan articles on why the said non partisan website used to fact check was, in fact, a liberal front.  It's all tin foil hat time with die hard Trump people. Look at the plagiarism from Monday, spending a lot of time trying to blame Hillary for it to deflect the actual issue: that the Trump campaign is not as organized as a Presidential campaign should be.

I don't know, some of the Hillary die hards on this very board refuse to admit there was anything wrong with the email thing other than the fact that it might affect her election chances.

honestly, I don't know if it's even possible to argue with @Rory Snow. I mean his tone seems to imply that he's open for debate, but he's clearly coming from a completely different set of premises and social circles. Simply his statement that Trump genuinely wants what's best for the country is a completely alien mindset to most people on this board, and I wouldn't even know where to begin arguing that.

[Boris the Blade]

1 minute ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I don't know, some of the Hillary die hards on this very board refuse to admit there was anything wrong with the email thing other than the fact that it might affect her election chances.

honestly, I don't know if it's even possible to argue with @Rory Snow. I mean his tone seems to imply that he's open for debate, but he's clearly coming from a completely different set of premises and social circles. Simply his statement that Trump genuinely wants what's best for the country is a completely alien mindset to most people on this board, and I wouldn't even know where to begin arguing that.

Trumps intentions mean fuck all when they're bigoted beyond belief and would actually harm those country. Trump wants what's best for straight white men. That's all, fuck how true his intentions are. He's terrible either way you look at it.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

16 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Trumps intentions mean fuck all when they're bigoted beyond belief and would actually harm those country. Trump wants what's best for straight white men. That's all, fuck how true his intentions are. He's terrible either way you look at it.

That's completely besides the point. I pointed out one irreconcilable difference of opinion I'd have with Trump supporters and you respond by pointing out Trump is bad in other ways? How is that even relevant? I'm sure Trump supporters would disagree with what you said too.

[SkynJay]

1 hour ago, Rory Snow said:

Who said anything about trusting him? Neither can be trusted but at least he believes in what he's saying. Hillary's sole focus is to be President, not to lead, not to improve anything, but to be President and she's proven she's more than willing to lie, cheat, steal & change accents to do it. Trump at least truly wants to make things better. Can he? Who knows. Some things will improve, others won't. But I don't think the country can survive 4-8 years of the Hillary 'I'm a woman in the White House' tour. She's just trying to make her mark on history, the country needs much more than that right now.

Dunno what to tell you.  You are presenting a narrative that you seem to want to believe as if it is a fact we should all see.  Your analysis seems the opposite of reality to me, but you seem to like the comfy couch you have made to sit in.  The nice thing about Trump is he may be the best known candidate in my history; someone who actually wants to know what he has said can find an incredible history of it.  And if 'he means what he says' is important then we know he believes Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya, woman are pigs and when they get pregnant it is bad for his business, sending models to seduce the spouse of someone you disagree with is acceptable behavior, Mexicans are mostly rapists with a  couple of good people thrown in, etc.  His speeches talk more about how he wins certain states than policy yet someone you think Clinton is the one who is more interested in being president that leading.

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Rory Snow said:

 Hillary's sole focus is to be President, not to lead, not to improve anything, but to be President and she's proven she's more than willing to lie, cheat, steal & change accents to do it. Trump at least truly wants to make things better. 

These things you say Hillary will do that makes her unfit for presidency are things Trump brags about doing, save, perhaps, adopting accents.   

Could you expand on what has led you to believe that Trump truly wants to make things better-- specifically where it applies to making things better for those whose last name is not Trump?

1 hour ago, Rory Snow said:

But I don't think the country can survive 4-8 years of the Hillary 'I'm a woman in the White House' tour. 

What does an "i'm a woman in the White House" tour mean?    bringing in her #girl squad to insta pics in matching flag onesies?

[Jaxom 1974]

12 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I don't know, some of the Hillary die hards on this very board refuse to admit there was anything wrong with the email thing other than the fact that it might affect her election chances.

I don't read it that way with the Clinton stalwarts on the Board at all.  

That being said, she didn't do anything illegal. One can question the judgement that went into the server, but at this point it is nothing but smoke and mirrors diverting from actual policy discussions.

[Fez]

It's like staring into the madness of the abyss.

[Boris the Blade]

54 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

That's completely besides the point. I pointed out one irreconcilable difference of opinion I'd have with Trump supporters and you respond by pointing out Trump is bad in other ways? How is that even relevant? I'm sure Trump supporters would disagree with what you said too.

They can disagree all they like. They are either willfully ignoring just how terrible he is, or they are really that oblivious to how terrible he is

[BloodRider]

19 hours ago, Wethers said:

Yes - seems like many are focused on the "tactical view" right now.  Specifics of the conventions and talking points, who will carry which state, whatever outrageous thing Trump and his folks day or do next.  Nervously laughing at the foibles of the Republican Party.  Understandably so - a Trump victory in November would be a terrible outcome for the whole world, not just the US.

But I think the longer term view of what is happening with 40% or more of the US population is even more important.  And frankly I can see why we sometimes do not want to talk about it much because it is the Abyss.

40% of the population are fine with casual racism and sexism.  Fine with a wall to keep Mexicans out and a law to keep Muslims out.  Fine with hyper-ventilating uber-nationalism and 5th grade bully rhetoric.  Fine with wanting America to return to the 50s or earlier.  And these 40% seem much more driven and committed than the rest of the electorate.

All that will continue to be true even if Trump loses.  The US seems ripe for fascism.

I think 40% is a huge over-estimate.  I think the 23% Bush cap is still in effect.  I say that with 2 caveats.  

1) This does not mean that I think there is no danger of Trump getting elected - I just don't think that all 40% of his supporters are unrepentant racist, MRA shitheads.  More that they are hanging on to something that means a great deal to them, and have not yet processed that the party has moved on.

2) 23% is still a shitty, shameful proportion of our population.

[Rory Snow]

1 hour ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I don't know, some of the Hillary die hards on this very board refuse to admit there was anything wrong with the email thing other than the fact that it might affect her election chances.

honestly, I don't know if it's even possible to argue with @Rory Snow. I mean his tone seems to imply that he's open for debate, but he's clearly coming from a completely different set of premises and social circles. Simply his statement that Trump genuinely wants what's best for the country is a completely alien mindset to most people on this board, and I wouldn't even know where to begin arguing that.

Finally someone who identifies objectivity. Just because I'm not a mindless Hillary drone doesn't make me a Trump toadie. Frankly I think, regardless of the outcome, this election may be the worst thing that's happened to the US in my lifetime.

Not sure how people don't understand this take. Trump supporters know he's an asshole because it's blatant and as a non politician he sucks at hiding it, but they support him because they believe he's the better of two bad options. Hillary supporters can't see that she's an asshole because she's a career politician and is good at hiding it and thus they support her because they've been fooled into thinking she's actually a good option. Need proof? Hillary folks think Melania Trump plagiarizing a couple lines is a bigger deal than Hillary's email debacle. Now THAT is being fooled. 

As for me, I'm hoping they're both forced to withdraw due to some horrible and disabling bikini waxing accident. If ever there was a need and a time for a viable 3rd party candidate, this is it. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

It's hard to pick just one thing to be repulsed about by the Republican Convention, but I was so fucking disgusted by Chris Christie's attempt at a Soviet-style show trial of Hillary Clinton that I struggle to find the words to express it. The Republican party has well and truly driven their little clown car over the edge of the cliff, I hope it is only a matter of time before they hit bottom and explode.

It's easy to forgive people like Ben Carson playing six degrees of separation with Hillary Clinton and Satan himself because, well, Carson is an obvious fuck nut. But Chris Christie is a legitimately smart guy. He knows better. He knows how dangerous and irresponsible it is to try to criminalize normal political disagreements. He knows that the State Department's decision over whether or not to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist group does not, in any way, result in Hillary Clinton being responsible for the kidnap, rape and murder of school girls in Nigeria. He knows how fucking gross it is to put someone "on trial" in absentia, in front of a crowd chanting for their arrest, over basically normal political disagreements. And he's doing it anyway because he is a spineless, power-hungry weasel without a single shred of decency or dignity. Fuck him. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Paul Ryan really is nothing more than an oily used car salesman at heart, isn't he?  Listening to the man, he comes across as not having a single sincere bone in his body.  I say that having watched him in person and having an opportunity to shake his hand (I really dislike the guy, but he's still the Speaker of the House and when you get a chance to shake the hand of the Speaker of the House, whether you like him or not, you don't pass up the chance).

Are you seriously suggesting that a man you professes to be a devout Christian and a huge fan of Ayn Rand might be dishonest? How dare you, sir! 

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, Rory Snow said:

Hillary folks are think Melania Trump plagiarizing a couple lines is a bigger deal than Hillary's email debacle. Now THAT is being fooled.

Has anyone on the forum said this?  I'm pretty sure they haven't, and if they did, I'm pretty sure they'd be called out for it. 

Because this sounds to me like you have created this "Hilarybot" in your head, rather than it being a real person. 

[Fez]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Are you seriously suggesting that a man you professes to be a devout Christian and a huge fan of Ayn Rand might be dishonest? How dare you, sir! 

The one thing I'll say in Ryan's defense, and it was something seemingly no one at the convention noticed, is that he repeatedly said 'the Democratic party.' It has been accepted for years in Republican circles to only ever say 'the Democrat party,' no matter how bad the grammar is or how incorrect it is to try to change something else's proper name, because they are trying to prevent any association between the Democratic party and democratic values. 

Which is just so stupid, but like many stupid things Republicans believe, they've accepted it wholesale. And the fact that Ryan didn't do it, be it knowingly or subconsciously, suggests that he understands just how much bullshit his party is in to. 

I regularly get the sense that Ryan is trying to pull a von Papen, only he thinks he can do it successfully. He just wants to dismantle the Federal government in peace, but needs support from people who want all these other things to have any leverage.