Donald Trump

[sdreid]

I would vote for Gary Johnson but I scared to death that William Weld would be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

[Abby Normal]

sad

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ugly-bloody-scenes-in-san-jose-as-protesters-attack-trump-supporters-outside-rally/ar-BBtOyJC?ocid=spartandhp

[Pcdunn]

Wow, thanks for the story about San Jose. I lived there in the mid-1980s while going to grad school at the State University. Hard to believe we're seeing scenes like this from that city.

I dislike Trump intensely, but the protesters are doing themselves a disservice by attacking violently rather than peacefully. At the same time, Trump's rhetoric to his followers in the past has definitely advocated hate and violence toward protesters.

Very sad, indeed.

[Abby Normal]

Wow, thanks for the story about San Jose. I lived there in the mid-1980s while going to grad school at the State University. Hard to believe we're seeing scenes like this from that city.

I dislike Trump intensely, but the protesters are doing themselves a disservice by attacking violently rather than peacefully. At the same time, Trump's rhetoric to his followers in the past has definitely advocated hate and violence toward protesters.

Very sad, indeed.

agree.
I don't like trump either-although I believe he's toned down the "punch the protestor" type talk.

He still needs to tone it waaaay down in general though-and stop saying such incendiary things. I believe he is talking himself out of the white house.

and I doubt he'll change.

In terms of the anti-trump protestors. agree. especially the ones waving Mexican flags and being violent-burning stuff etc. They are actually feeding right into trumps stupid rants about Mexicans!!

For the record-I am for securing our border with Mexico, but on the other hand I'm also for basically for amnesty-no serious criminal record and/or currently employed and/or with family and you are in!! and folks who have been waiting for the process to citizenship legally-them first!

I cringe when I hear talk about deporting millions of people. cringing now just thinking about it!!

[ChrisGeorge]

agree.
I don't like trump either-although I believe he's toned down the "punch the protestor" type talk.

He still needs to tone it waaaay down in general though-and stop saying such incendiary things. I believe he is talking himself out of the white house.

and I doubt he'll change.

In terms of the anti-trump protestors. agree. especially the ones waving Mexican flags and being violent-burning stuff etc. They are actually feeding right into trumps stupid rants about Mexicans!!

For the record-I am for securing our border with Mexico, but on the other hand I'm also for basically for amnesty-no serious criminal record and/or currently employed and/or with family and you are in!! and folks who have been waiting for the process to citizenship legally-them first!

I cringe when I hear talk about deporting millions of people. cringing now just thinking about it!!

There's no doubt that Trump's rhetoric has been incendiary and has led to all this. It really saddens me to see these scenes. It's bad enough to burn one of those red Trump hats but to see them burning an American flag as well. . . for shame! I also agree that the man doesn't seem to be able discipline himself. You remember some months ago he was saying he'd be so Presidential. . . that we won't believe how Presidential he can be. Well, that looks very unlikely. The citizens of the United States who will be voting this November need to think about the consequences of voting such an individual into the White House.

Best regards

Chris

[Pcdunn]

Abby: I like your approach to immigration, as far as avoiding deportation goes. Here in Colorado, we had an increase in people taking citizenship tests, so they could vote in November.

Chris: I think the people who vote for Trump will get the president they deserve-- but if he is the president the country deserves, well, not so much...

[Rosella]

I believe that if in November it looks as if there is the slightest chance that Trump will succeed Latinos and African Americans will come out for Hillary, even though there's no great enthusiasm for her. Better that than ...! All the same there's still the chance that she may be indicted before the Convention, and that's a worry.

[Pcdunn]

Trump resorts to fakery to prove he has African-American supporters?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/04/3784856/trump-responds-accusations-racism-fake-photo-black-supporters/

[Shaggyrand]

I believe that if in November it looks as if there is the slightest chance that Trump will succeed Latinos and African Americans will come out for Hillary, even though there's no great enthusiasm for her. Better that than ...! All the same there's still the chance that she may be indicted before the Convention, and that's a worry.

The real chance of a Clinton being indicted is so close to zero that it is really not worth mentioning. Vegas bookmakers will not take odds on it and they'll take odds on anything. There are plenty of reasons but the biggest is if they indict her, they will have to indict a lot of others, like pretty much every Secretary of State from Baker to Clinton, most Cabinet members and a couple prison transports full of Congress in that time period. Using private servers for federal business has been common since they started moving away from ARPANET. There is a long standing history of incompetence and negligence in Washington when it comes to most things, anything tech related most of all. Unless there is something huge, I mean straight up treason or a shocking amount of racketeering (a little is ok, she is a politician after all) or something along those lines that hasn't been revealed in any report yet its just not going to happen.
I mean for those who really want her indicted, hope springs eternal...

[Abby Normal]

The real chance of a Clinton being indicted is so close to zero that it is really not worth mentioning. Vegas bookmakers will not take odds on it and they'll take odds on anything. There are plenty of reasons but the biggest is if they indict her, they will have to indict a lot of others, like pretty much every Secretary of State from Baker to Clinton, most Cabinet members and a couple prison transports full of Congress in that time period. Using private servers for federal business has been common since they started moving away from ARPANET. There is a long standing history of incompetence and negligence in Washington when it comes to most things, anything tech related most of all. Unless there is something huge, I mean straight up treason or a shocking amount of racketeering (a little is ok, she is a politician after all) or something along those lines that hasn't been revealed in any report yet its just not going to happen.
I mean for those who really want her indicted, hope springs eternal...

Hi Shaggy
Your right-The chance of her being indicted is close to zero. However, the chance of when the FBI releases the findings of their investigation of her being extremely negative is close to 100%.

especially after the state dept Inspector general report that just came out was negative.

she will definitely be hurt by it-how much and what affect it will have is hard to say, but with Bernie seemingly staying in it to the convention, its not going to be good for her either way.

[Errata]

I would just dearly like it if people could get themselves clear of what the email problem actually is, so I don't have relatively well educated men trying to tell me that voting for Clinton is voting for a murderer because her non secure emails got Ambassador Stevens and others killed in Benghazi. That just makes my brain hurt.

[jason_c]

I would just dearly like it if people could get themselves clear of what the email problem actually is, so I don't have relatively well educated men trying to tell me that voting for Clinton is voting for a murderer because her non secure emails got Ambassador Stevens and others killed in Benghazi. That just makes my brain hurt.

To be fair we have the same with Trump. The amount of hatred & lies directed towards the man is incredible. He is never to be given the benefit of the doubt by his detractors. The exact same fruitloops as you describe on the right are found on the left.

As for Hillary's emails. We'll never know what was compromised by her exclusive use of a private server.

[Svensson]

copied this over from the EU thread before that one goes OT:

If Trump's comments are anything to go by, then he will indeed destroy the current system. From a external point of view, I would however think that what he is planning on destroying is actually the very same system that has guaranteed world-peace over the last 70 years. Especially his comments on

- suggesting Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea might have their own nuclear arsenal.
- changing the relationship with SK into something that is effectively a protection racket (US troops in SK effectively allow the US to project power and influence into North-Eastern Asia, but he is not willing to foot parts of the bill for this).
- Openly advocating trade-wars with Mexico in order to get them to pay for his wall.
- No one knows what his actual policy towards China would be, so another trade-war would be very conceivable.
- Unconstitutional comments on 14th Amendment (birth rights) and the 1st Amendment (Freedom of religion)

should all be paid very close attention to before anyone would vote for him.

I'm also not convinced that he doesn't have any favours to pay back. The news in Germany is that he owes hundreds of millions of Dollars to Deutsche Bank and his failure to release his tax returns for inspection would also suggest that he has some business relationships to hide. On the other hand, his extreme vanity could be a factor here as well. For someone who constantly goes on about how rich he is and went with the "I am self-funded" card during the primaries, it is surprising that he is now actively seeking Donors for his presidential campaigns.

A better insight into his business deals would also allow the general public to see which ones of his policies would benefit HIM financially. There is also the likelihood that it would show that he has extensive business relationships with China and Mexico (going beyond his Suits and ties) and that would immediately expose him to accusations of hypocrisy.

On Hilary, while it seems that the Email-Server issue is a red herring, it does show a concerning tendency to be overly secretive and defensive (or I could just label her a "control freak" ). Obama has already had problems with the block-everything approach of the Houses in his presidency, I think that H.Clinton would be in an even worse situation were she president. Compared to Obama, she actually IS divisive (how much of that is her own fault, is a different matter though). If she makes it to the white house, she could be one of the least effective presidents in recent history. This might not be such a bad thing actually where there is such a heavily polarized US electorate.

[Mayerling]

copied this over from the EU thread before that one goes OT:

If Trump's comments are anything to go by, then he will indeed destroy the current system. From a external point of view, I would however think that what he is planning on destroying is actually the very same system that has guaranteed world-peace over the last 70 years. Especially his comments on

- suggesting Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea might have their own nuclear arsenal.
- changing the relationship with SK into something that is effectively a protection racket (US troops in SK effectively allow the US to project power and influence into North-Eastern Asia, but he is not willing to foot parts of the bill for this).
- Openly advocating trade-wars with Mexico in order to get them to pay for his wall.
- No one knows what his actual policy towards China would be, so another trade-war would be very conceivable.
- Unconstitutional comments on 14th Amendment (birth rights) and the 1st Amendment (Freedom of religion)

should all be paid very close attention to before anyone would vote for him.

I'm also not convinced that he doesn't have any favours to pay back. The news in Germany is that he owes hundreds of millions of Dollars to Deutsche Bank and his failure to release his tax returns for inspection would also suggest that he has some business relationships to hide. On the other hand, his extreme vanity could be a factor here as well. For someone who constantly goes on about how rich he is and went with the "I am self-funded" card during the primaries, it is surprising that he is now actively seeking Donors for his presidential campaigns.

A better insight into his business deals would also allow the general public to see which ones of his policies would benefit HIM financially. There is also the likelihood that it would show that he has extensive business relationships with China and Mexico (going beyond his Suits and ties) and that would immediately expose him to accusations of hypocrisy.

On Hilary, while it seems that the Email-Server issue is a red herring, it does show a concerning tendency to be overly secretive and defensive (or I could just label her a "control freak" ). Obama has already had problems with the block-everything approach of the Houses in his presidency, I think that H.Clinton would be in an even worse situation were she president. Compared to Obama, she actually IS divisive (how much of that is her own fault, is a different matter though). If she makes it to the white house, she could be one of the least effective presidents in recent history. This might not be such a bad thing actually where there is such a heavily polarized US electorate.

Hi Swensson,

Let us face facts - Hillary has more experience that Donald ever will have in politics and diplomacy (pace the Bengazi disaster), but she has a personality one would like to hide from, even when she acts with the best of intentions.

Donald is a bloviating, self promoter. You mention he may owe the Reichbank million of marks or Euros. I could believe it. The New York Times was exposing his ineptitude running a large scale casino into the ground in Atlantic City, and leaving the bond holders holding the bag while he managed to steal millions for himself out of it. In short he's a high pressure, lying crook. With the serious personality defect she has, I'll take Hillary any day over Donald.

I can also say that I am aware of an example of his being an unprincipled scoundrel and bully to an elderly woman I met in the 1980s. He apparently had her roughed up in the laundryroom of her apartment house in Manhattan to force her to agree to his demands to purchase her apartment (he was going to resell the apartments in that building for jacked up prices). None of this is being made up by me - I'm just relating it. I've no doubt he has used these techniques other times, but that he's skillful in covering his tracks when he does (by bribery of police or whatever). His so called, "art of the deal" is crap - he's a successful thug.

To me, the 2016 election is going to be one of those "vote-against" Presidential elections, where the electorate ends up selecting the lesser of two evils. An example of this in U.S. history was President Grant's re-election in 1872 over Horace Greeley. Grant's first term was full of political scandals (though none touched him personally). Greeley, however, despite being a great editor of his newspaper the "New York Tribune", was something of an extreme faddist and eccentric. Except for a few months as a U.S. Congressman in the 1850s (serving out an uncompleted term) he never held any political office. That could have been said of Grant in 1868, when he ran for the Presidency the first time, but in 1872 he had four years of experience. So one had the choice of voting for Greeley if one felt one had enough of the corruption in Grant's Presidency, or of voting for Grant if one feared putting the Presidency in the hands of an eccentric nut. Grant won, by a large majority for that period, and Greeley (whose wife died during the campaign, and who lost his position at the "Tribune", which was a Republcan newspaper - and Grant was the official Republican candidate), went mad and died in three weeks after the election.

Jeff

[Rosella]

I thoroughly agree, Mayerling, that 2016 is going to be one of those 'lesser of two evils' elections, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because I prefer politicians who can inspire me. I continue to hope and believe that Trump has well and truly shot himself in the foot with his oafish behaviour and remarks which I'm sure will be repeated, resulting in a very clear Clinton victory in November. I'm quite sure Trump is completely ruthless when he wants something and the poor woman you met who'd been roughed up by his underlings wasn't a lone victim.

It was very fortunate that Greeley lost the 1872 election BEFORE going mad!