Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Eddie View Post
    I'm having a hard time separating "defeating Trump" from "helping Hillary win".

    I don't need the self-loathing that would come from voting for either.
    The data seems to be showing that Johnson is actually taking more votes from Hillary than from Trump. When respondents are asked about all three, Trump usually comes closer to Hillary than when it's just those two.

    Comment


    • I continue to be truly mystified by Trump's continuing appeal, and how so many people seem to believe his bloviations, like this one from last night:

      This election isn't about Republican or Democrat, it's about who runs this country: special interests or the people. Why would politicians want to change a system that's totally rigged to keep them in power? That's what they're doing folks. Why would politicians want to change a system that's made them and their friends very very wealthy? We can't fixed a rigged system by relying ... on the very people who rigged it.
      I understand the populist sentiment and why so many find it appealing. What I don't understand is why they think Trump embodies the populist ideal. By his own admission, Trump has given millions to politicians and benefited tremendously from those donations. Why don't his audiences heave rotting produce at him, or at least buckle over in paroxysms of laughter, when he says such things with a straight face?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
        I continue to be truly mystified by Trump's continuing appeal, and how so many people seem to believe his bloviations, like this one from last night:



        I understand the populist sentiment and why so many find it appealing. What I don't understand is why they think Trump embodies the populist ideal. By his own admission, Trump has given millions to politicians and benefited tremendously from those donations. Why don't his audiences heave rotting produce at him, or at least buckle over in paroxysms of laughter, when he says such things with a straight face?
        Trump gave the Florida Attorney General some campaign money so she wouldn't pursue the case against Trump U in her state. Pretty slimy. It was a national story a couple of days ago but few seem to be paying attention.

        Comment


        • Is this just Trump propaganda or did the lawyers who are going after his "Fraud U" actually pay the Clinton's over $675,000 in speaking fees? I wish there was a list of all the places Bill and Hillary have spoken and got a fee of over $200,000. If they are getting that much per speech, think about how rich Obama is going to be. If he is as much for the middle class and poor as he claims, he should be an example and give 50% to charity or just give it to the government. As much as the Clinton's are for the comman man, I will bet they paid extra in taxes and also gave 50% of their speaking fees to charity.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by byu71 View Post
            Is this just Trump propaganda or did the lawyers who are going after his "Fraud U" actually pay the Clinton's over $675,000 in speaking fees? I wish there was a list of all the places Bill and Hillary have spoken and got a fee of over $200,000. If they are getting that much per speech, think about how rich Obama is going to be. If he is as much for the middle class and poor as he claims, he should be an example and give 50% to charity or just give it to the government. As much as the Clinton's are for the comman man, I will bet they paid extra in taxes and also gave 50% of their speaking fees to charity.
            I'm not sure why it matters what famous people get for speaking fees. It's ok for conservative speakers because they don't claim to care about the less advantaged? What evidence is there that conservatives don't care as much even if they have different solutions to problems? Weird reasoning, IMO.
            Last edited by BlueK; 06-08-2016, 11:31 AM.

            Comment


            • Since the recent excitement about Trump's bad effort at deflecting attention from his Trump U fraud case by claiming the judge can't be trusted because he has Mexican ancestry a few generations back, I've read a few pretty stupid apologetic rationalization pieces on it from some "conservative" sources. Seriously embarrassing the lengths some people will go to defend Trump when Trump ideologically isn't even a real conservative to begin with. These are the same yahoos who scream bloody murder when the left uses "identity" politics, but it's perfectly ok if Trump does it too.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                I'm not sure why it matters what famous people get for speaking fees. It's ok for conservative speakers because they don't claim to care about the less advantaged? What evidence is there that conservatives don't care as much even if they have different solutions to problems? Weird reasoning, IMO.
                Why would you say that? There is a huge difference between not caring for the less advantaged and no believing that the government is the ideal in terms of taking care of the less advantaged. Studies have shown that conservatives are more giving in both time and monetary contributions to charity.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                  Since the recent excitement about Trump's bad effort at deflecting attention from his Trump U fraud case by claiming the judge can't be trusted because he has Mexican ancestry a few generations back, I've read a few pretty stupid apologetic rationalization pieces on it from some "conservative" sources. Seriously embarrassing the lengths some people will go to defend Trump when Trump ideologically isn't even a real conservative to begin with. These are the same yahoos who scream bloody murder when the left uses "identity" politics, but it's perfectly ok if Trump does it too.
                  Case in point:

                  "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                  "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                  - SeattleUte

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by imanihonjin View Post
                    Why would you say that? There is a huge difference between not caring for the less advantaged and no believing that the government is the ideal in terms of taking care of the less advantaged. Studies have shown that conservatives are more giving in both time and monetary contributions to charity.
                    I'm not saying that at all. I'm just confused as to why it's bad for a liberal to take speaking fees and what that has to do with their level of caring for the less advantaged. Does BYU71 or anyone else care if a conservative gets paid to speak and what that person will do with the money. I may not like what the Clintons stand for politically or in other things, but I couldn't care less what someone would want to pay them to speak to their group.
                    Last edited by BlueK; 06-08-2016, 11:49 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                      Case in point:

                      exactly. They are proving they both like identity politics. In both cases it's disgusting to me. Someone's cultural heritage is not an automatic disqualifier. In America we're supposed to be better than that. Until not that long ago I really believed we were.

                      Furthermore, in Trump's case this isn't a silly, non-existent hypothetical. He's talking about a guy born in Indiana who has some Mexican ancestors a couple of generations back. It's also a judge that is very well respected by all sides of the political spectrum and was unanimously approved by the US Senate.

                      Seriously, the defenses of Trump's stupid words are twice as disgusting to me as what Trump said.
                      Last edited by BlueK; 06-08-2016, 11:55 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Go for it Mitt! Win or lose, it's good to stand for something higher than the garbage choices the electorate has right now. Ok, I actually like Gary Johnson, but IMO, the muddier the general election race is and the more viable choices, the better. Let the House of Reps deal with it later if need be and let the chips fall where they may. At least that would be following the Constitution and we may possibly end up with a much better president than Trump or Hillary.

                        http://www.weeklystandard.com/an-ope...rticle/2002732

                        as a side note, it's ironic and funny to a mormon reader how the writer is appealing to a mormon politician using the example of Martin Van Buren of "your cause is just but I can't help your people" fame.
                        Last edited by BlueK; 06-08-2016, 12:09 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                          I'm not saying that at all. I'm just confused as to why it's bad for a liberal to take speaking fees and what that has to do with their level of caring for the less advantaged. Does BYU71 or anyone else care if a conservative gets paid to speak and what that person will do with the money. I may not like what the Clintons stand for politically or in other things, but I couldn't care less what someone would want to pay them to speak to their group.
                          Fair enough. However, do you not see the hypocrisy in taking such large speaking fees on one hand and then decrying the wage gap, inequality, and, most damning, tuition costs (even though colleges and Universities are payors) on the other?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by imanihonjin View Post
                            However, do you not see the hypocrisy in taking such large speaking fees on one hand and then decrying the wage gap, inequality, and, most damning, tuition costs (even though colleges and Universities are payors) on the other?
                            i don't. how does telling goldman that her fee is actually half of what they offer going to have any effect on any of that?
                            Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by imanihonjin View Post
                              Fair enough. However, do you not see the hypocrisy in taking such large speaking fees on one hand and then decrying the wage gap, inequality, and, most damning, tuition costs (even though colleges and Universities are payors) on the other?
                              How far do you want to take it. A lot, if not most world religions, have some ascetic traditions where it was felt to be less hypocritical and closer to God one should eschew all luxuries to embrace a simple life and devote all their talents to helping the suffering and less advantaged in society. Jesus seemed to promote that idea to the rich young man. Very few of us actually do that. but I don't think we have to in order to express a desire to help the poor without being a labeled a hypocrite.
                              Last edited by BlueK; 06-08-2016, 12:36 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                                i don't. how does telling goldman that her fee is actually half of what they offer going to have any effect on any of that?
                                Yeah, true. There is nothing amiss for someone to decry the wage gap and condemn CEOs for how much they make during all while collecting $250k (nearly 5 times the average income of US households) for a 40 minute speech. Apparently, Clinton feels morally justified in collecting what the free market demands for her time, yet feels that CEOs and other large wage earners are not.

                                Don't worry, I don't expect anything less from the left. They luxuriate in the society and all of its offerings that capitalism built and then bitch and moan about perceived inequities. It reminds me of this picture of kayakers protesting an oil rig.

                                kayaks.jpg

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X