Trump is "a clear and present danger"

Of course the media is conspiring to ensure Trump is not elected, but so to are many other peoples in the world. Why? Because he is not fit for office.
His rant about recent media conspiracy is about the only "real" thing he has said the entire campaign.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is another thing that law enforcement in the USA may be considering or need to consider.
Given that one of Trump's greatest weaknesses is attractive women, of all ages, he may have placed himself in a seriously compromised position and is currently being extorted by those in Russia who have no reluctance when it comes to blackmail, extortion etc.
Knowing the aggressive nature of the Russian sex industry including the use of minors, Trumps current desperation, suggests this line of inquiry may be, in the least, precautionary.

If Trump is a victim of this sort of extreme blackmail/extortion he would do anything to avoid exposure.. ( including running a ridiculous campaign for Presidency as he would be obliged to do)

He may have got himself into a sh*t load of trouble and a successful campaign for President may be his only way out.

I think most men can see what I am alluding to with out much problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also as seen with Brexit, the Philippines, Australia and recent elections held world wide the "token" protest vote can prove overwhelming.

Example protest vote:
"I voted for Brexit but didn't think for a moment that it would actually happen."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not buying the media conspiracy theory. The media is under no obligation to become an arm of the Trump campaign, and just because it isn't, it doesn't make for a conspiracy. The media is doing exactly what it's suppose to do. It's suppose to report the news. The media isn't, nor should it, dress up candidates. Just because Trump doesn't like what people see, it doesn't make people wrong or the press wrong for reporting the facts.

 

Trump's greatest weakness is his personality. It is or should be very apparent he suffers from narcissistic personality disorder. That's his greatest weakness, a little flattery gets you a long way with Trump, e.g. Putin. Trump's narcissism makes him very vulnerable to manipulation. It's also the source of his great volatility and erratic behaviors. That's his greatest weakness. He has many more.

 

I'm guessing this is just a shot in the dark.. What a story though if true. Can't set that it isn't possible..

 

And so a guy like Trump ends up in Russia doing business in the top end and what do you think is likely to happen? ( He seems to love mixing business with pleasure)
Either way, for me, .. a big orange flag has gone up on this issue...

 

I agree.. however the media is always selective in it's editorial opinion and endorsements and it appears many agree on the issue of Trumps fitness for office. (thus a sense of conspiracy simply because they agree)
Example:
Trump visits 3 Psychiatrists, all doctors agree that clinical NPD and paranoia are evident. Trump due to paranoia, declares a conspiracy exists between the 3 doctors to discredit him.
Classic.

 

The protest vote world wide seems to be predominantly immigration ( refugee) based.
Idea:
If Clinton called for a 30-90 day moratorium on refugee intake to allow further discussion on this issue the issue would be significantly diffused and the risk of a serious protest vote would most likely be minimized.

The issue of refugee intake is set to become significantly worse with the Mosul campaign currently underway, and to be honest even the most courageous humanitarians are most likely uneasy...

 

At this point, Donald Trump has made it clear that he doesn't have, and has never had any respect for women. This is his undoing, for women are a beast not to be understimated, not since they were allowed to vote.

He has also made it pretty clear that the conditions he would impose on would be immigrants, including that they demonstrate respect for America and American values, disqualify himself from being a citizen. He should have his citizenship taken off him and be deported as an unwanted alien who doesn't have American values.

He is profoundly un-American, by his own admissions, he says he has no respect for Congress, it's populated with "horrible" people in his world. Why isn't that enough for say, the Dept. of Homeland Security to not have a rendition plan on the table?

Just sayin'.

Just a little respect, uh huh.

 

A Clinton call for a moratorium would hurt Clinton. Trump, and Republicans would see it as a validation of their position, and Democrats and Independents would see it as a betrayal. Refugees are just one issue, there are many more. The most important being the Republican entertainment industry. The industry doesn't care about facts or reason, they preach hate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and they have been preaching hate of Clinton for nearly 30 years. That's not going away just because Hilary weakened or reversed her position on immigration.

The "protest vote" is against the "nebulous establishment". There is a long standing belief, and it's not without merit, that fat cats are screwing the common man. The irony is that the people calling themselves conservatives are the tools, i.e. the pawns, of the fat cats they so abhor.

Mosul will have no impact on US immigration. Even if the Mosul fighting generates a significant number of refugees which I doubt, it will have little to no impact on US immigration. It takes about 2 years for a refugee to immigrate into the US. It's a very slow process as the vetting is extensive.

So there is no value for Hilary in changing her immigration policies and there is a lot of potential harm in doing so.

PS: I expect any Mosul refugees would be taken care of by the Iraqi government, and would probably be resettled in Mosul after Iraq has retaken the city.

 

I understand your point Joe..however it is the wider communities fear based perception and not the facts that could push an extraordinary protest vote that will get Trump "accidentally" elected. It would be wise to not underestimate how much unspoken community concern there is.

As HC said in her 2nd debate, "These are extraordinary times and this is an extra-ordinary election" and sometimes a little "time" out on a major concern/issue may make all the difference.

 

This is interesting, and the reason why is that the only reason I disagree with you is a matter of degrees.

The kind of calculation you're discussing is something the proverbial Clinton machine excels at; to the other, it is exactly this Machiavellian, mechanical, nearly entirely relativist manner of market calculation that sets so damn many people against them. It's easy to exploit the appearance of cold political capitalism when it dresses a purported liberal. Yet on Wednesday morning, we will skewer the naïveté of the politician who skips out on such things for principle and thus dances into the Abyss. Hillary Clinton's negatives are extraordinary, but based largely on noise and bluster, which is why at the end of the day she continues to succeed. Some writer from California named Paul Rosenberg↱ reminds, "We don't have 'two historically unpopular candidates'".

Except, well, we kind of do. But that's the thing. He's not wrong in what he actually means, just in stating it like that:

There are at least three main problems with this meme. First, it's a recent snapshot view, which clearly reverses cause and effect. Running for president has severely eroded Hillary Clinton's popularity, due to the combination of intense political polarization and partisanship. On the other hand, becoming first the Republican front-runner and then the nominee has elevated Trump, bringing him in early September to his highest-ever level of national popularity.

Second, it ignores how popular Clinton was as secretary of state―much more popular than Vice President Joe Biden, her only “credible” competitor in elite circles at the time. Third, Clinton is not unpopular with nonwhite voters: African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans all have favorable views of her, at least in broad strokes. The meme thus obscures the racialized nature of Trump's and Clinton's respective popularity problems ....

.... In a telling snapshot, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll as Clinton left secretary of state post in January 2013 found her approval rating at 69 percent, “higher than any other outgoing secretary of state measured in a survey since 1948―with one exception: Colin Powell, whose approval rating was at 77 percent per a late 2004 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll.” That's hardly the sign of an unpopular political figure. Unsurprisingly, 92 percent of Democrats approved of Clinton's performance―but so did 64 percent of registered independents and even 41 percent of Republicans.

Two months later, Business Insider ran a story headlined ”Republicans Secretly Think Hillary Clinton Will Crush Them In 2016″ ....

... The story went on to cite a Quinnipiac survey that found Clinton leading both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in Florida by 11 points, aided by a 62 percent favorability rating in the state.

As the chart below shows, her popularity fell as a consequence of entering into the highly polarized process of a presidential campaign, beginning just as these stories came out in early 2013. That was when the GOP began shifting the focus of its attacks against her―via multiple fruitless Benghazi investigations, for example―but that did not succeed in bringing her down into negative territory until mid-2015 ....​

And it is worth reminding:

"But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen."

―House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA23)↱​

Rosenberg is not wrong insofar as it goes. Furthermore:

There’s another way that the “unpopular candidates” meme gets things wrong and that’s when it comes to race and ethnicity. As reported by Becky Hofstein Grady, a SurveyMonkey election tracking poll of more than 91,000 registered voters in August clearly showed that Clinton was not unpopular with nonwhite voters:

Clinton’s unfavorability is driven mostly by White voters: Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters all give her net positive ratings. Trump, on the other hand, does not get a net positive rating among any racial group, even Whites.​

‡​

In short, Clinton is only unpopular with whites, more unpopular than Trump by a good margin, in fact. So the meme is also a way of cloaking unacknowledged racial animus, a sentiment that Bill Clinton famously co-opted with his “Sister Souljah moment,” but that Hillary apparently can’t avoid.

It’s worth reflecting back on Bill Clinton’s racial politics. The Sister Souljah incident was just one of many in which Clinton went out of his way to affirm his Southern white roots, even as he also did other things that clearly benefited African-Americans. America’s white majority was politically much more dominant in the early ’90s than it is now, and Clinton had built his career on adapting to that reality. Older blacks, who lived through those times, understand the logic of what he was trying to do, and tend to be deeply sympathetic to Hillary Clinton to this day, especially as she has moved forward. Younger black Americans, in contrast, tend to be more aware of the limits that the Clintons accepted — and strengthened. As Grady notes about Hillary:

Her favorability ratings improve with age among Black voters as well: the majority of Black voters 65 and older have a “strongly favorable” opinion of her (55 percent), while only 35 percent of those under 35 do. The Clintons have a long but not uncontroversial history of support from the Black community, and it could be that older Black voters are more likely to have positive memories of Bill Clinton’s presidency, while younger voters may focus more on problems with his legacy since then.​

This brings us to a final point: Not only is it misleading to think of “popularity” without considering race; it’s also misleading to think of race alone. People are more complex than that, both individually and in social groups. Which is why pollsters and political scientists try to understand demographic groups. And here we find yet another way in which Trump’s unpopularity truly stands out as different and distinctive.​

And even that is pretty impressive. Consider a broad Gallup survey exceeding 11,600 respondents in which, Rosenberg explains, "Clinton had a 40 percent to 33 percent advantage in favorability rating". The poll identified sixty-two demogrpahic subgroups; overall, Clinton won those subgroups 47-13, with two tied, but also managed to achieve fifty percent or better approval among fourteen of those groups:

As for Trump, he had 50 percent approval or more in exactly zero demographic groups. His best showings were 49 percent among males over 50, households that included military veterans and white males. He had above 40 percent approval, Clinton’s overall average, with just four other groups.

What all this means is that something more complicated is going on than the “two historically unpopular candidates” meme allows or prepares us to think about.​

To bring that all around, we might simply consider that among those who don't like Hillary Clinton, it is especially fierce. And, furthermore, her extraordinary negatives reflect this by leaving a smaller middle ground than most.

Still, though, she is not without significant support and historical popularity.

Rosenberg, of course, goes to all that effort in order to complain about the press, but neither is that aspect irrelevant.

Hillary Clinton is unpopular in part because of a steady drip of misinformation; combined with a superstitious presupposition that within that many lies at least one must accidentally be true there is also the general weariness of hearing bad news about Hillary Clinton―perpetual mudslinging has conditioned the audience to some degree.

The effect, of course, is what it is. You are not fundamentally incorrect; I just think that, overall, a calculated buckle to moratorium would cost her the election. Given a choice between Republican malice and a Democrat masquerading "Republican Lite", voters prefer the genuine article. Conceding the point with moratorium is a bridge too far.
____________________

Notes:

Rosenberg, Paul. "We don't have 'two historically unpopular candidates': What the media gets wrong about candidate popularity". Salon. 6 October 2016. Salon.com. 17 October 2016. http://bit.ly/2e19pGd

 

Tiassa,
Whilst I can appreciate the historical references being made to past policy failures and successes I can also appreciate that this particular election is unprecedented in many ways.

Unprecedented:

1. The first one being that not only has a woman been nominated for Presidency for the first time ( by a major party) she also has the task of taking over the reins from the USA's first Afro-American President. Both are incredibly significant points to keep in mind IMO when assessing the current "community" sentiment.
2. The second one is that these are extraordinary times globally for many reasons. One of which is that "End Times paranoia" seems to have infected just about everyone. Global warming, climate change, ecological and pending environmental collapse weigh heavily on most peoples minds and so on...
3. The third is the unprecedented migration of asylum seekers en mass around the globe due to in the main "freedom" and security issues.
4. The fourth is the serious issues facing the EU highlighted, but not constrained to just the British exit vote, calling for essentially a closing of borders.
5. The fifth is more USA local, in that a Businessman of some notoriety has suddenly made a successful start to a campaign to become President.

All the above give cause to resist the temptation to look at this election campaign through the filter of historical political data due to the unprecedented nature of what is happening.

In other words there is a strong need to think outside the box and be a bit more "lateral".​

Above all concerns that Trump has raised early on in his campaign it was the issue of border control of the USA that caused the most angst and probably his greatest support. IMHO

In fact border control alone, is currently one of the most serious and fear loaded issues the nations of this world are facing at present. IMO
( Possibly symptomatic of a the trend towards globalization effecting people in ways unanticipated)

Aside:
Australia's, significant anti-Australian human rights violations with regards to indefinite off shore detention is a sad indictment of the fear the general and predominantly silent community has about border issues. That the Australian people are accepting of the "necessary evil" that they are allowing to be perpetrated in their name is very telling of this fear, indeed. A recent Australian Prime Minister can be quoted as saying "he was sick of UN criticism". Now this is, up until recently, an utterly foreign position to take for Australians.​

So all in all a case can be made to support the notion that the possibility of a strong protest vote ( as seen elsewhere) may be lodged by people who would not normally vote. As this vote is anonymous and done in privacy there is no way the voter would know whether his protest vote could unintentionally be successful in electing, in this case Trump to the Presidency.

Given the outcome of what a Trump presidency may mean, I would expect that, the potential of a protest vote accidentally electing Trump must be of serious concern.

So then the question remains:
How does the USA (not just the HC campaign) manage the possibility of a serious protest vote based on border protection issues?
A start would be for HC to at least acknowledge the underbelly fear that is pervading her nation. Demonstrate greater empathy for those who fear too much change in demographic and "way of life" too quickly.
thus reduce the need to tell HC what she would have indicated she already knows.

By maintaining a polarized uncompromising position she appears to lack empathy.

She needs to indicate that compromise is at least possible.... IMO

This election problem has very little to do with Republican vs Democrat. IMO

There only needs to be a major radical Islamic terrorist attack on USA soil between now and the election to cement that silent protest vote...and suddenly Trump, even as an pseudo republican sponsored independent, may very well be your new President. (and he knows it)

 

That's a good analogy, but the truth is what it is. Sometimes a monster really is a monster. Partisans will always view things through their partisan lenses. We shouldn't distort reality just because a some folks are incapable of dealing with it.

 

Trump has a long history of asserting the victim card when he loses. Trump has repeatedly described himself as "the fabulous whiner". And true to form, Trump is whining about losing the election even though the election hasn't occurred. Trump says whining is how he wins. So apparently, Trump's whining about the election and asserting it is "rigged" is how he intends to win this election. I don't think it's going to work out for him - whine as he has and undoubtedly will.

Many of the key states like Ohio and Florida are states run by Republican governors, legislators and the elections are overseen and administered by Republicans. But in order for Trump's conspiracy to work, he would need his own party to conspire against him on grand scale, and there is absoutely no evidence of the grand Trumpian conspiracy.

Make no mistake, Trump's assertion of a "rigged" election is a Trump election strategy. He can't win through normal order of business so he is whining.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/opinions/donald-trump-whiner-opinion-obeidallah/

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-whiner-whining-president-2015-8

 

it's all about self justification. Trump needs to justify his effort and investment...and also his fear..
He has made a gamble bid and as a lot of gamblers do, they get defensive when they lose their bet. Chasing their losses etc... lead on to further losses...the end result is someone who is financially and emotionally bankrupt.
The problem is he may take a lot of people down with him...

 

To the Trump supporters threatening revolution...
The threat of revolution can work both ways...If you are threatening revolution if Trump loses, please consider the possibility of a revolution if Trump wins.

 

The following hypothetical (but quite possible) situation:

Donald Trump loses, and quite badly, let's allow 100 votes less than Clinton who gets more than 300.

By the time a Clinton victory is declared, the Republican party, the VP and the rest of Republican officialdom concede and congratulate the Democrats and their candidate.
Donald Trump doesn't like losing, he doesn't concede, what then? Will he have still the political muscle to affect the outcome, post-election? Or will the Republican party disavow all knowledge of his actions?

After all, Trump is the nominee and so, surely, is subject to some kind of rules set in place by the RNC? Or what?

 

Will your message self-destruct?