Trump is "a clear and present danger"

So far, it's the only one posted with any argument or evidence. In fact, it's the only one posted at all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it really makes no difference.

Trump supporters believe her to be evil, manipulative, cruel, greedy, dishonest etc (basically any thesaurus word under the heading "bad.") Doesn't matter if there is any evidence or not, or if their claims are true. Nothing she does or says (or anything her supporters do or say) matters.

Clinton supporters are not going to be swayed by Trump's mostly-libelous claims.

Some undecideds, believing her to be much better than she is (i.e. the Democratic version of things) will change their minds when they read about some of the bad things she's done.

Some undecideds, believing her to be evil incarnate (i.e. the Trump version of things) will change their minds when they hear her speak, or debate Trump, or read about some of the good things she has done.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As revealed in the recent debate, The Donald thinks not paying taxes is smart and it's good business when people lose their homes.

Now you don't think that's a clear and present danger?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That makes sense if the decision about Clinton is governed by information about Clinton, and the availability of that information or likelihood of encounter with it is more or less unaffected by other concerns.

And if there is such a thing as an "undecided" who thinks she is evil incarnate, or one who thinks she is much better than she is.

My take is based on the assumption that encounters with such information are strongly influenced - in content and frequency - by surrounding circumstances, and that the presented nature of her core backers/critics is one of those circumstances. And that many actual undecideds will form their opinions based on the encounters that have been so influenced.

 

hee hee... the best way to beat Trump is for Hillary to walk away from the race and say to Trump "It's all yours, go for it.. The USA deserves you"......

Hillary has just as much right to shove the presidency down Trump's throat as any body... she could just simply walk away and go live in the Bahamas and watch the outcome on TV.

 

Is Trump a cocaine addict? Howard Dean, a physician, thinks so. After watching the debate on Monday and noting The Donald's persistent sniffing, Dean speculates The Donald might be a coke head.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/howard-dean-donald-trump-coke-user/

I don't know if The Donald is or isn't a cocaine abuser. One one level it makes sense, and on another turnabout is fair play. The Donald and Republicans have accused Hillary of being so ill she was likely to die before the election.

Republicans doctored videos and pictures of Clinton making it appear as though she was ill and spreading unfounded rumors that she was gravely ill and would likely die before the election. So now when the shoe is on the other foot, I don't think you can blame Democrats if they play that game too now that the shoe is on the other foot.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hey, The Donald may be a cocaine abuser. It would explain some of his bizarre behaviors.

 

Compare two fictional last week scenarios:

1. Trump pulls out of the race. What would happen?
2. Hillary pulls out of the race. What would happen?

 

There are so very many wonderful aspects to the Donald's personality...

Trump Admits He Found 12-Year-Old Paris Hilton Attractive
...
He then went on to call Hilton “dumb like a fox” and admitted that he had watched her sex tape.​

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-paris-hilton_us_57ee9373e4b024a52d2ea629?section=&

On the other hand, he...

Said He Promised Ivanka He Wouldn’t Date Girls Younger Than Her
Ivanka Trump would have been 17 in 1999, when Trump made the claim to radio host Howard Stern, according to the New York Daily News.
“I have a deal with her. She’s 17 and doing great ― Ivanka. She made me promise, swear to her that I would never date a girl younger than her,” Trump said. “So as she grows older, the field is getting very limited.”​

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...promise_us_57ee98cbe4b024a52d2ead02?section=&

There is only one Donald... We hope.

 

Nah, everybody is Donald. I'm a Donald he's a Donald she's a Donald we're a Donald wouldn't you like to be a Donald too?

 

Interesting sideline to Trump's threat, which is predicated on selling an image of Clinton as some kind of monstrous individual most decent people mistrust and disapprove of (otherwise "both sides" misfires, since the attempt to sell Trump as anything else will crash).

When Clinton left her job as Secretary of State, less than four years ago, her approval rating was 69%, her disapproval rating less than 25%.

 

From my remote Aussie perspective, there are two seriously irrational aspects occuring simultaneously.
1/ The bizarre and extraordinary support for Trump.
2/ The extreme distrust, hatred, contempt for Hillary.
When asked (generally and here in Melbourne Australia) supporters for Trump and haters of Hillary can not adequately explain the intensity of their feelings towards either candidate.
It seems that fate has dealt a strange and weird circumstance...
...and it doesn't appear to be merely Republican propaganda generated as most people can see political poisoning easily enough and maintain a certain objectivity. (an objectivity that appears to be seriously lacking at present)

 

It be might be difficult for Aussies or others to understand it. But it really isn't that difficult to understand. Those 2 groups of people have one thing in common, American right wing entertainment, e.g. Fox News, right wing radio, and right wing internet sites.

An American diplomat and senator once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.". Well with the advent and rise of the right wing entertainment industry Republicans are entitled to their own facts. If they need a fact, they make up as many as they need. Right wingers need never be confronted with reality and with real facts, and they aren't. All facts are summarily and without merit dismissed as liberal nonsense. That's how you get a Donald Trump at the top of the Republican ticket. That's how you get people distrusting and hating Hilary Clinton.

No, they cannot explain their hatred or their love and frankly they don't have to and they don't want to and they can't. But none of that matters to them. It's all about the demagoguery with them. Republicans have and continue to appeal to our basest instincts and Republicans are capitalizing on that human frailty.

 

You may be underestimating the depths of the shithole into which the American media has lowered the American public.

The "mere Republican propaganda" has been a continuous thirty year saturating inundation, complete with its own dedicated radio and tv stations, its own dedicated "think tanks" and intellectual foundations, and the sophisticated attention of the most effective marketing and propaganda operations ever seen on the planet.

In dealing with its target population fraction now it is quite capable of creating - for example - alternating two year periods of panic over inadequately lavish borrowings for military needs and disastrous buildup of public debt, with the requisite switchover intervals (to create the amnesia) taking no more than a couple of months. It can create a simultaneous certainty of the end of racism in American public life and the appropriateness of racial profiling in law enforcement.

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due". (Dick Cheney, successful VP campaigner, Remarks on Paul O'Neill (January 9, 2004)

 

Oh I can see that in the USA this could be the case. However I am referring to an Australian perspective where by we are not exposed to such propaganda.
Put it this way...
(examples)
" I'd vote for Trump but I don't know what his first name is"
or
"I hate Hillary "what's her name""

There appears to be strong passion either way about something they are almost totally ignorant of.
Most here have no to little real idea of the distinction between Republican and Democrat parties.

 

There isn't one anymore. They're both wings of the same gang of reivers, none of whom give a rusty about what happens to the people that "vote" for them.

 

There is also I feel something else worth asking about.
Correct me if I am wrong please...

1. The elected President is the spokesperson for his parties policies. (T/F)
   
2. The elected president is the head of his party. (T/F)
3. The presidential candidates espouse party policy (not just individual policy) (T/F)

ie.
The great Southern wall Trump wishes to build is Republican policy (not only Trumps) ? (Y/N)

 

The president is a spokesperson for the party, but only one of many. However, he isn't the titular head of the party. Each party has national committee and the highest office is chairman. But the chairman, unless he holds political office, has no roll in government. The president would be the highest elected official of his party and he can lead the party. But he has a larger roll as leader of the country. His first obligation is to the country, not the party. And he holds no special office within his party, i.e. he isn't on the party's organization chart.

The major roll of the national committee is to get its members elected to political office and hold a nominating convention. At the convention, the president and vice presidential candidates are nominated, and the party platform is created and approved. The national committee provides a framework to support party functions. The national committee by itself doesn't make party policy. Delegates to the convention make party policies and the party's presidential nominee, e.g. Trump, has a great deal of influence in creating the party platform, i.e. policies; because the nominee has great influence with the delegates.

Policy is made by elected government office holders or the party's nominees e.g. Trump. Donald Trump or people in his campaign had a big influence in drafting the party's political platform.

It's a fairly lose structure. The president always speaks his own position. It may or may not be the party position. But it usually is. The president's job is to speak for everyone not just his party.

 

The "both sides" schtick is Republican Party media manipulation and propaganda aimed at their upper class base - buy into it at your peril, intellectually.

Don't be silly, in other words. The Democratic Party is more or less a standard political Party, with all the faults thereof but also the virtues - it vets and nominates sane and sound politicians for high office, acknowledges reality in it programs and policies, etc. It has become increasing rightwing and authoritarian in recent decades, but that only deprives the libertarian Left of a political voice - it doesn't make the Party itself worthless and crazy.

The Republican Party has been ruined, no longer functions as a participant in governing the country, and has become worthless and crazy. Everything it does is damage, vandalism. There is no equivalent aspect of the Democratic Party. There are no Democratic Trumps, Coulters, Limbaughs, Fox News, W's, Cheneys, Ayn Rands, Roger Aisles, Rupert Murdochs, David Brooks's, Sean Hannitys, Sarah Palins, Louis Gohmerts, Michelle Bachmanns, etc etc etc. No coalition of Democratic Congressmen ever got together and set out to block everything a Republican President tried to accomplish, regardless of whether it was good or bad, as preparation for future campaigning.

The two parties are not wings of the same gang. They are not even both wings of the same government, in a sense.

 

ok... very different to the System we have here... very!
Could one suggest that the "party" is no more than a glorified lobby group that promotes it's delegates into government?