|
Post by jiminix on Oct 1, 2016 10:26:02 GMT -7
Over on the TNews forum, I linked an article about the staunchly Republican party-line Dallas Morning News endorsing a Democrat for president for the first time since before WW2. Since then, there have been several other similar stories.
The next one was the Cincinnatti Enquirer, which endorsed a Democrat for the first time in 100 years. Then the Arizona Republic, the first time in its entire 126 year existence. Now there's the San Diego Union-Tribune, the first Democratic endorsement in its 148 year history.
A little less momentous is USA Today, which has never taken sides in a presidential election before - this week they didn't exactly endorse the Democrat, but they took a stand against Trump, calling him unqualified and unfit to be president.
The Chicago Tribune was another first, this week endorsing the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. They may be having buyer's remorse now, after Johnson's recent TV displays of ignorance of world affairs, last week not knowing what Alleppo is, and this week not being able to name any current foreign world leaders.
I haven't seen any published numbers, but I'd like to know what percentage of typically Republican newspapers are now opposing Trump.
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Oct 1, 2016 10:26:27 GMT -7
The truth is, all informed and conscientious Republicans are horrified that Trump is their candidate. But the leaders still hope their party can recover, and hope that Trump won't drag down all the other Republican candidates in this election. For this reason, most of them don't want the party to appear in shambles, so they pretend to express support, even if it's only to say that they will vote for him.
Most professional political observers say there's virtually no chance Trump will be elected. However, I don't feel reassured. These are the same observers that said 6 months ago that there's no chance Trump will become the nominee. Just a week or two ago, according to the average of all polls, if the election had been held then, Trump would have lost by only 274-264 electoral votes.
And then, there's the "Bradley effect", or something similar, where voters in surveys falsely report their preferences to the pollsters because they think it makes them look better. They tend to do this even though the survey is anonymous. So I'm concerned that Trump support is actually a few percent higher than the polls find, and that could easily swing the election.
I can only hope that when voters go to the polls this year, they have enough respect for the nation that they don't vote for Trump.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Oct 1, 2016 11:44:12 GMT -7
I agree that Trump gets harder to defend, but how is he worse than Hillary Clinton? To my knowledge, Trump has never done anything remotely close to being suspected of a crime, let alone investigated. Please don't make me list the Clinton scandals again, starting with Whitewater.
There's no constitutional requirement that the President be polite. If he is stupid enough to be brash with other world leaders he'll be impeached faster than you can yell Monica. I don't want either candidate but Trump is the better of the choices that we have, in my opinion.
Edited to add, we should move this to the political forum, but let's see if it can get some traction for a good discussion here first.
h
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Oct 1, 2016 13:48:25 GMT -7
I agree that Trump gets harder to defend, but how is he worse than Hillary Clinton? To my knowledge, Trump has never done anything remotely close to being suspected of a crime, let alone investigated. Please don't make me list the Clinton scandals again, starting with Whitewater. There's no constitutional requirement that the President be polite. If he is stupid enough to be brash with other world leaders he'll be impeached faster than you can yell Monica. I don't want either candidate but Trump is the better of the choices that we have, in my opinion. Edited to add, we should move this to the political forum, but let's see if it can get some traction for a good discussion here first. h Yes, it's more appropriate for the political forum. This forum was the only link I had, and I didn't realize until now that there was another forum on this board. In the future, I'll put political posts over there.
|
|
harleydays
New Member
When tyranny becomes law, then rebellion becomes duty.
Posts: 105
|
Post by harleydays on Oct 2, 2016 1:27:35 GMT -7
Jimnix, be careful now, hoofie swings a big ruler...hehehe LOL!...Good to see you crossed over from T forum...
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Oct 2, 2016 7:22:27 GMT -7
Well, let's try Clinton Vs Trump without the rhetoric. Someone convince me that Clinton is better without mentioning Trump. I'll challenge the Trump supporters to do the same. Without mentioning Clinton, why is Trump better?
By the way, I didn't move this thread, I think JD did. I was going to move it today, boss, really, but I wanted it to have maximum exposure for 24 hours.
|
|
|
Post by bmccullough on Oct 3, 2016 7:05:31 GMT -7
I can't take ownership for writing this. Proper credit goes to Mark Amore via FB, but he makes decent points. That said, it doesn't follow Hoofie's request to keep the other candidate out of the discussion. In this particular election, I don't think that you can, really. They both have vastly polarizing personalities that it is dern near impossible to sling positivity towards one without shading the other. That said, here's Mr. Amore's compelling argument of #nevertrump: "If Hillary's emails bother you but the 22 million deleted emails during the Bush/Cheney administration – also on a private server - don't, I can't argue with that. Missing Whitehouse E-mailsIf Benghazi bothers you, and the 13 embassy attacks during Bush (where 60 people were killed) doesn't bother you, I have no argument for that. 13 Embassy AttacksIf you think the Clinton's running their charity (a charity with an “A” rating with CharityWatch.org, that has 88% of its contributions going out to charity and not overhead and has a higher rating than the Red Cross and United Way) is a conflict of interest, while having no desire to know where Trump's money comes from – which is now from all foreign sources, because no US bank will loan him money anymore – AND if you had no problem with the conflict of interest with Dick Cheney running Halliburton and making BILLIONS during the war in Iraq, then I have no argument for that. Clinton Foundation - Fact CheckClinton Foundation - Charity WatchIf you have women and girls in your life who you want treated with respect and don't have a problem with Trump's rampant misogyny, I have no argument for that. Trump MisogynyIf you don't find Trump's praising of Putin and Kim Jong-un alarming, I have no argument for that. Trump BromancesIf you're OK with voting for someone who is against LGBT rights and has stated that his supreme court pick(s) could overturn marriage equality, I have no argument for that. LGBT issuesIf you have no problem with someone who has gone on and on and on about Bill Clinton's infidelity while he has cheated on his first wife with his second and his second wife with his third, then I have no argument for that. ALSO, BILL CLINTON ISN'T RUNNING FOR OFFICE, HIS WIFE IS. Trump InfidelitiesIf the list of proposed Supreme Court nominees that Trump put forth doesn't scare you enough to crap your pants, I have no argument for that. Trump's Supreme Court PicksIf Trumps history of racial inequality doesn't bother you. I have no argument for that. Trump RacismIf you have no problem when you hear Trump go on about how companies are shipping their jobs overseas and how he will stop this, while his suits are made in Mexico and his ties in China, I have no argument for that. Trump's Offshore Merch ProductionIf Trump's use of his charity's funds to pay personal debts and buy paintings of himself don't give you pause, then I have no argument for that. Trump FoundationI you think that Trump's a good businessman and will be good for our county's economics, when knowing about how many of his companies failed, I have no argument for that. Trump Business RecordIf the charges of fraud on Trump University and the scandal of his “donation” of $25,000 to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, after which she stopped her investigation into Trump University don't bother you, then I have no argument for that. Trump UniversityTrump Political Pay-offsIf you buy into the smear campaign against Hillary and don't get that so many on the right have - and have HAD - a hard-on to get Clinton for what... 30 years now? And have spent MILLIONS of tax dollars to get her on something and have gotten NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO. 30 years of half truths, lies and some bat sh** crazy lies (my favorite being the one where she has killed so many people that it would make Hannibal Lector seem lazy!) repeated incessantly until the gullible and uneducated take it as truth, then I have no argument for that.30 Year Clinton Smear CampaignAnd if you think Trump is the better candidate, I have no argument for that either. And the reason I have no argument with that? Because as I wrote earlier… I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. We'll have to agree to disagree." I must add the ramifications of allowing Trump to implement his "stop & frisk" plan nationwide. This is NOT what we need. We do not need to allow our government leadership to begin down the road of the creation of a police/military state in this country. We have 4th and 14th Amendment rights for a reason. Implementing "stop & frisk" steps all over those rights. While those who aren't black or Hispanic should be afraid as well because by allowing such activities "for some," we open the door to increased scrutiny and constriction of freedoms to the American public as a whole. This is not a good thing. If you are afraid your 2nd Amendment rights will be taken away by Hillary, but see no problem with having your 4th and 14th Amendment rights being taken away, I have no argument for that. Stop & FriskI've never liked Hillary. Still don't care for her, personally. But in the interest of moving this country forward (rather than backwards, imo) in terms of social unity both within our borders and beyond, national security and continued steps towards global peace, I'm gonna have to go with Her. I wanted to choose a 3rd Party option, I really did. I was leaning strongly towards Gary Johnson as a moderate-conservative option. I forgave him his ignorance of Aleppo. I forgave his brain-fart on naming positive world leaders - he had nothing. But, I had to draw the line at his proclamation that we needed to get serious about forming planetary outposts. We aren't there yet. That's too far into the realm of sci-fi fantasy. Yes, we need to revamp NASA and make stronger inroads into space exploration, but we are nowhere near forming off-planet living arrangements. Jill Stein, also, was a strong contender early on for me. But her focus is solely on establishing a "green" government. It's a great premise and something we need to take a serious look at, but again, we aren't there. So, I'm stuck with the original "Her," the woman I have had a strong dislike for since she "stood by her man" in the 90s. She's the most qualified person running. Hands down. She knows her political sh** backwards, forwards and sideways. If any of the other 15 Republican candidates had been able to knock Trump out of the running early on, I would have gladly voted red; but alas, I cannot. I cannot give my vote to a man that does not have the temperament, maturity, and knowledge necessary to man the helm of this country's government.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Oct 3, 2016 12:08:35 GMT -7
I'll reply in kind with words that are not mine but are profound none the less. **************************************************************************
Glaude is the chair of the Department of African American Studies at Princeton University and the author of Democracy in Black.
I'm turning my back on the party that turns its back on our most vulnerable
I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her endorsement by Bernie Sanders. My decision isn’t because of the scandal around her emails or because of some concern over her character. My reasons are pretty straightforward. I don’t agree with her ideologically.
Democratic values centered on economic and racial justice shape my own politics. I’m not convinced those values shape hers. Nothing Clinton says or intends to do if elected will fundamentally transform the circumstances of the most vulnerable in this country—even with her concessions to the Sanders campaign. Like the majority of Democratic politicians these days, she is a corporate Democrat intent on maintaining the status quo. And I have had enough of all of them.
What has Clinton offered the American people as a substantive alternative to the status quo? How would her position on free trade, her view of foreign policy, on immigration, her call for “common sense policing” in the face of the murders of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge or Philando Castile in Minneapolis redirect our course as a nation? Transform the condition of black and brown communities?
Given the state of the country and of black and brown communities, these questions must be asked. But for many, especially for Clinton supporters, these questions reek of the unreasonableness of the American left or of people like me: that somehow to ask them reveals that we don’t understand the incremental nature of American politics or that we have crossed over into some forbidden realm of politics.
Nothing of the sort is said when Republicans reject Trump on ideological grounds. Many, like Jeb Bush, argue that Trump isn’t a true conservative, and that they will not vote for him or Clinton. This is seen as reasonable, and pundits rarely question the integrity of those who hold such views. But to argue something similar about Clinton is immediately dismissed. We are labeled electoral nihilists.
That difference reveals the spectrum of American politics: that it moves from the center to the far right. There seems to be little room for genuinely progressive politics left of center in this country. (The legacy of the Democratic Leadership Council ensured that.) We are told that our only viable option is Clinton. Get behind her or risk the future of the nation, they say. Political hokum.
This narrowing of the political field joins with a celebration of an easy form of identity politics. Many laud the fact that Hillary Clinton would be our first woman president. But, beyond the symbolism, what would that mean for women at home and abroad?
We have seen a version of this movie before, right? In 2008, the country celebrated the election of Barack Obama as the nation’s first black president. But that celebration did not come with a demand for actual policies that might substantively affect the lives of African Americans in this country. Many just felt good about the idea of a black president. Now, as Obama prepares to leave office after eight years, African American communities lay in ruins, and we continue to find ourselves engaged in this haunting ritual of grieving in public for another black life killed by the police.
It is not enough that Hillary Clinton might be our first woman president. Symbolically that would be significant, but the more important question rests with how her economic policies would affect the lives of working, poor women and children here in the United States and around the globe. How would she shift the frame of US aid policy and its impact on developing countries? How might her hawkishness affect the lives of vulnerable women and children? If none of that matters, then we might as well celebrate Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, because she was a woman.
Anti-racism and anti-sexism have become easy positions for Democratic political elites. We hear politicians talk about voting rights or Roe v. Wade, or stand in the pulpit with black preachers or express solidarity with women around the world, and we assume that their policies reflect their rhetoric. On closer examination, nothing could be farther from the truth. It’s just the latest instance of a puerile multiculturalism that changes little and allows a few people to feel good about themselves.
I am not suggesting that anti-racism or anti-sexism (or identity politics generally) don’t matter. But they can’t provide cover for business as usual—a version of neoliberalism dressed in multicultural Chanel.
Perhaps the most persuasive reason to vote for Hillary Clinton is Donald Trump. Trump is worse. I know that. The prospects of a Trump presidency—what would be a deadly combination of arrogance and ignorance—ought to frighten anyone. It frightens me. But my daddy, a gruff man who has lived all of his life on the coast of Mississippi, taught me that fear should never be the primary motivation of my actions. It clouds your thinking, and all too often sends you running to either safe ground when something more daring is required, or smack into the danger itself. (I learned a similar lesson after reading William Faulkner’s “The Bear” in Go Down Moses.)
The real danger goes beyond the demagoguery of Trump and the racist bile of some of his supporters. The danger is that the way we live our lives as Americans, no matter our optimism about the future, is no longer sustainable.
We can’t continue to live with the current level of income inequality. Hard working people are working longer hours for less pay. And politicians and their benefactors continue to argue for trade policies that have decimated the working class in this country. We can’t continue to lock up black and brown people or watch them killed in cold blood by people sworn to protect us or fail to publicly educate all of our children. We can’t continue to bomb people around the world into oblivion.
We can’t even approximate a robust idea of the public good when filthy rich people believe that the only role of government is to facilitate the transfer of public dollars into private hands, and the function of politicians is to make us believe that it is in our best interest that we allow such a thing to happen.
In the end, Donald Trump is just an exaggerated indication of the rot that is at the heart of this country. That fact of Trump alone, and the democratic anguish that goes with it, cannot be the only rationale to support Hillary Clinton. Something more substantive is required of us—of her.
Many, despite what I’ve written, will still vote for Clinton. I do not fault them—especially if they live in a hotly contested state like Ohio or Florida. Vote for Clinton to keep Trump out of office. I completely understand that. But I can’t vote for her.
I will vote down ballot, focusing my attention on congressional, state, and local elections. And I will leave the presidential ballot blank. I have to turn my back on the Democratic Party that repeatedly turns its back on the most vulnerable in this country, because the Party believes they have nowhere else to go. That false belief betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of this period of democratic awakening.
We find ourselves in a peculiar moment in American history, crystallized by profound grief and the hard, pressing work of imagining a future under siege by the callousness and greed of the present. A renewed democratic faith in each other is required to change our course. Thin imaginations will seal our fate. But, I see that faith blossoming throughout the country (even with all the tears and anguish). The Sanders’ campaign was just one bloom. Everyday people are standing in democratic opposition, shouting with Melville’s Bartleby Scrivener, “I prefer not…”
I will say the same to Hillary Clinton come election time.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Oct 4, 2016 4:50:55 GMT -7
I stumbled upon this today. It's from Scott Adams (yes, the Dilbert cartoonist) blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-endorsement-from-clinton-toWhy I Switched My Endorsement from Clinton to Trump
Posted September 25th, 2016 @ 12:41pm in #Trump #clinton As most of you know, I had been endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety, because I live in California. It isn’t safe to be a Trump supporter where I live. And it’s bad for business too. But recently I switched my endorsement to Trump, and I owe you an explanation. So here it goes. 1. Things I Don’t Know: There are many things I don’t know. For example, I don’t know the best way to defeat ISIS. Neither do you. I don’t know the best way to negotiate trade policies. Neither do you. I don’t know the best tax policy to lift all boats. Neither do you. My opinion on abortion is that men should follow the lead of women on that topic because doing so produces the most credible laws. So on most political topics, I don’t know enough to make a decision. Neither do you, but you probably think you do. Given the uncertainty about each candidate – at least in my own mind – I have been saying I am not smart enough to know who would be the best president. That neutrality changed when Clinton proposed raising estate taxes. I understand that issue and I view it as robbery by government. I’ll say more about that, plus some other issues I do understand, below. 2. Confiscation of Property: Clinton proposed a new top Estate Tax of 65% on people with net worth over $500 million. Her website goes to great length to obscure the actual policy details, including the fact that taxes would increase on lower value estates as well. See the total lack of transparency here, where the text simply refers to going back to 2009 rates. It is clear that the intent of the page is to mislead, not inform. So don’t fall for the claim that Clinton has plenty of policy details on her website. She does, but it is organized to mislead, not to inform. That’s far worse than having no details. The bottom line is that under Clinton’s plan, estate taxes would be higher for anyone with estates over $5 million(ish). I call this a confiscation tax because income taxes have already been paid on this money. In my case, a dollar I earn today will be taxed at about 50% by various government entities, collectively. With Clinton’s plan, my remaining 50 cents will be taxed again at 50% when I die. So the government would take 75% of my earnings from now on. Yes, I can do clever things with trusts to avoid estate taxes. But that is just welfare for lawyers. If the impact of the estate tax is nothing but higher fees for my attorney, and hassle for me, that isn’t good news either. You can argue whether an estate tax is fair or unfair, but fairness is an argument for idiots and children. Fairness isn’t an objective quality of the universe. I oppose the estate tax because I was born to modest means and worked 7-days a week for most of my life to be in my current position. (I’m working today, Sunday, as per usual.) And I don’t want to give 75% of my earnings to the government. (Would you?) 3. Party or Wake: It seems to me that Trump supporters are planning for the world’s biggest party on election night whereas Clinton supporters seem to be preparing for a funeral. I want to be invited to the event that doesn’t involve crying and moving to Canada. (This issue isn’t my biggest reason.) 4. Clinton’s Health: To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn’t look sufficiently healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country. If you disagree, take a look at the now-famous “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead” video clip. Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too, and Hillary wouldn’t be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side. 5. Pacing and Leading: Trump always takes the extreme position on matters of safety and security for the country, even if those positions are unconstitutional, impractical, evil, or something that the military would refuse to do. Normal people see this as a dangerous situation. Trained persuaders like me see this as something called pacing and leading. Trump “paces” the public – meaning he matches them in their emotional state, and then some. He does that with his extreme responses on immigration, fighting ISIS, stop-and-frisk, etc. Once Trump has established himself as the biggest bad-ass on the topic, he is free to “lead,” which we see him do by softening his deportation stand, limiting his stop-and-frisk comment to Chicago, reversing his first answer on penalties for abortion, and so on. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump look scary. If you understand pacing and leading, you might see him as the safest candidate who has ever gotten this close to the presidency. That’s how I see him. So when Clinton supporters ask me how I could support a “fascist,” the answer is that he isn’t one. Clinton’s team, with the help of Godzilla, have effectively persuaded the public to see Trump as scary. The persuasion works because Trump’s “pacing” system is not obvious to the public. They see his “first offers” as evidence of evil. They are not. They are technique. And being chummy with Putin is more likely to keep us safe, whether you find that distasteful or not. Clinton wants to insult Putin into doing what we want. That approach seems dangerous as hell to me. 6. Persuasion: Economies are driven by psychology. If you expect things to go well tomorrow, you invest today, which causes things to go well tomorrow, as long as others are doing the same. The best kind of president for managing the psychology of citizens – and therefore the economy – is a trained persuader. You can call that persuader a con man, a snake oil salesman, a carnival barker, or full of sh**. It’s all persuasion. And Trump simply does it better than I have ever seen anyone do it. The battle with ISIS is also a persuasion problem. The entire purpose of military action against ISIS is to persuade them to stop, not to kill every single one of them. We need military-grade persuasion to get at the root of the problem. Trump understands persuasion, so he is likely to put more emphasis in that area. Most of the job of president is persuasion. Presidents don’t need to understand policy minutia. They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public. Trump sells better than anyone you have ever seen, even if you haven’t personally bought into him yet. You can’t deny his persuasion talents that have gotten him this far. In summary, I don’t understand the policy details and implications of most of either Trump’s or Clinton’s proposed ideas. Neither do you. But I do understand persuasion. I also understand when the government is planning to confiscate the majority of my assets. And I can also distinguish between a deeply unhealthy person and a healthy person, even though I have no medical training. (So can you.) —
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Oct 7, 2016 13:04:13 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by badman on Oct 7, 2016 19:51:21 GMT -7
It may be that Mr. Pitney is hoping to persuade some votes. I don't think it will work this election. Those that pay attention know the political leanings of various media and who they will endorse. The folks that don't follow closely probably won't notice. It's no surprise that the liberal newspapers endorse Clinton. It's not really a surprise that the conservative newspapers reject Trump.
|
|