Barstool Sports? Really? Someone posting under the username "KFC" just riffs on an excerpt from a CNN interview. That's your "news" source.
You don't watch much news, do ya? It's been all over the nets for the last 24 hrs. So tell me again which of us is stupid?
Sorry dude, your IQ isn't sufficiently high enough to be worthy of any further banter. But hey, please continue to enjoy your life through whatever colour it is that your glasses are today.
You're the Trump supporter so you're in no position to question other people's IQs. You're the clown who's going to be reamed if Trump wins, even though you think you're going to win. My bet is that you've been so much roadkill for the majority of your life but you still haven't figured that out.
The fact that they are treated this way—double standard, low bar for Trump, is galling. But, far more serious, is that what we are seeing of Trump (even today) is very disturbing, to give the most generous reading. His psyche is unraveling 24/7 before our eyes. And, many people will still vote for this "man". He was correct when he said, paraphrasing—I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose votes. What does that say about him—and his supporters?
That there is some sort of "equivalency" granted by MSM in the resume of the two candidates is a significant impediment to a rational analysis of the merits of the candidates. I suppose HRC can't help it that the Republicans nominated a psycho-babbling, incoherent, pathological narcissist (yes, my amateur diagnosis). But, it is actually a unique challenge for her, or any candidate running against Trump, to try to stay on message to a rival candidate that tweets at 330AM—"watch the sex tape". In a perfect good election cycle, there would be some sort of rational, respectful, national dialogue between the candidates. Not in 2016, sadly. Yikes.
We haven't had the kind of national dialogue you're looking for in...well, maybe forever. Instinct and gut feelings about candidates have long dominated voters' choices. My general take is that the average American is too busy or saddled with life's challenges to dig into issues and candidates. A lot of people tune out campaigns until the final weeks or stick a figurative finger in the air: "Well, a lot of people seem pretty amped up about this issue, so I should follow their thinking!"
It's very hard for most voters to draw up a list of issues that concern them and track down summaries of candidates' positions on those matters. It's a lot easier to remain in an echo chamber like talk radio or politically oriented TV shows. Trump has done so well because voters have forgotten or (more likely) never developed methods to judge candidates carefully.
Younger Americans have a tendency to cocoon themselves in their own lives; it's easier to do so because their worlds have not been shaken by current events. The absolute shock and paralyzed horror many people experience on 9/11 was telling: their bubbles had been shattered and they were having to deal with international issues for perhaps the first time. My parents remember WWII and the sacrifices the country made, but many Americans don't remember Vietnam and they weren't affected by our more recent wars. They don't deal with politics because they think it doesn't affect their lives and they don't feel a civic duty to be informed—unlike older Americans like my parents.
The worst offender in this cycle is definitely the mainstream media, though. For too long, they've passively reported on Trump's events and statements without offering critiques or analysis. That's boosted their ratings at the cost of their journalistic integrity and duties. Apparently the heads of three network news organizations agreed to not cover one of Trump's recent events—I think it was the one where he claimed that Hillary had started the birther rumors in '08—because they had been played by Trump too many times. That kind of collective boycott of Trump should have happened a long time ago.
There hasn't been enough reporting on what Trump's promises would mean in the real world or whether he would have a chance of getting them realized or how Trump has lied and contradicted himself so many times. The media just reports the latest outrageous statement, like the campaign is some sort of shock-jock show or soap opera.
It's time for news networks to openly question Trump's mental stability and fitness to be President. It's time to show Americans that many of his promises are impossible to achieve or likely to be dangerous if fulfilled. Donald Trump is clearly in over his head and ignorant of that fact. It's time for Americans to realize that no matter how damaged they think national politics are, Trump as President would plunge the nation into serious and prolonged disaster.
Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
Posted:
Sep 30, 2016 - 9:59pm
Steely_D wrote:
It's because they're two very different people. Trump is a never-elected, never-proven reality star businessman. His "standard" is: does he know anything about the job? He gets the kindergarten questions. And, thus far, we're getting kindergarten answers. But nothing that makes him a good person, by way of his background or demeanor, to run the nation and its military.
That's not Hillary's standard. She knows this job. Better than anyone on the planet, probably. So her standard is higher level like "when you were in political office, what things did you do, good and bad, so we can know what we'd be electing?" And her answers are more complex and opaque - because that's how politicians talk. (And, she's got more government secrets/friends to protect.)
Yes, there are different standards.
The fact that they are treated this way—double standard, low bar for Trump, is galling. But, far more serious, is that what we are seeing of Trump (even today) is very disturbing, to give the most generous reading. His psyche is unraveling 24/7 before our eyes. And, many people will still vote for this "man". He was correct when he said, paraphrasing—I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose votes. What does that say about him—and his supporters?
That there is some sort of "equivalency" granted by MSM in the resume of the two candidates is a significant impediment to a rational analysis of the merits of the candidates. I suppose HRC can't help it that the Republicans nominated a psycho-babbling, incoherent, pathological narcissist (yes, my amateur diagnosis). But, it is actually a unique challenge for her, or any candidate running against Trump, to try to stay on message to a rival candidate that tweets at 330AM—"watch the sex tape". In a perfect good election cycle, there would be some sort of rational, respectful, national dialogue between the candidates. Not in 2016, sadly. Yikes.
Well that's cool considering what I was responding to, right ?
But on issues vs personality, um, an illegal private server and involvement in Libya and Benghazi are indeed legitimate issues to discuss, still ... that's Hillary I'm referring to. Was that civil and honest enough ? I didn't call Hillary a psychopathic fucker, right ? Nothing to say about that, just what I wrote.
Definitely a double standard going on here.
It's because they're two very different people. Trump is a never-elected, never-proven reality star businessman. His "standard" is: does he know anything about the job? He gets the kindergarten questions. And, thus far, we're getting kindergarten answers. But nothing that makes him a good person, by way of his background or demeanor, to run the nation and its military.
That's not Hillary's standard. She knows this job. Better than anyone on the planet, probably. So her standard is higher level like "when you were in political office, what things did you do, good and bad, so we can know what we'd be electing?" And her answers are more complex and opaque - because that's how politicians talk. (And, she's got more government secrets/friends to protect.)
Well that's cool considering what I was responding to, right ?
But on issues vs personality, um, an illegal private server and involvement in Libya and Benghazi are indeed legitimate issues to discuss, still ... that's Hillary I'm referring to. Was that civil and honest enough ? I didn't call Hillary a psychopathic fucker, right ? Nothing to say about that, just what I wrote.
Definitely a double standard going on here.
1. Republican and government investigations showed that Clinton had no involvement in security issues at Benghazi.
2. The FBI criticized Clinton and her subordinates for the use of a private mail server but stated that they did not do anything worthy of criminal prosecution.
3. Obama, White House staff, the State Department and non-government advisors (one of whom was a former roommate of mine, an academically brilliant man but an incredibly sour prick) and our allies like France messed up on Libya along with Clinton. That was hardly her screw-up alone. Libya was and is a very fluid situation. Inaction on our part could have led to worse events. Much of the Middle East was never under our control and never will be.
4. If you can find a better layman's description for Trump than "psychopathic fucker", let us know. The man is clearly mentally ill. He apparently wants to be President but is doing just about everything to lose.
You seem to have unlimited faith in The Donald. What a shame you didn't sign up for a degree from Trump University!
See, Trump should be a good candidate on his own. More and more folks are saying that he's inherently not.
And, if every time someone says he's not, the rejoinder is "Lookit Killary. She sux!" then it implies that 1) Trump is really not a good candidate and 2) his supporters haven't got any rejoinder to that except to try distraction.
Then his supporters' commentary becomes irrelevant, because it's not anything but knee-jerk contrariness. And, honestly, we need folks that can create the other side of the argument. There's no benefit to an absence of dialogue. It just needs to be honest and thoughtful.
Well that's cool considering what I was responding to, right ?
But on issues vs personality, um, an illegal private server and involvement in Libya and Benghazi are indeed legitimate issues to discuss, still ... that's Hillary I'm referring to. Was that civil and honest enough ? I didn't call Hillary a psychopathic fucker, right ? Nothing to say about that, just what I wrote.
Barstool Sports? Really? Someone posting under the username "KFC" just riffs on an excerpt from a CNN interview. That's your "news" source.
But congratulations on missing the point. Clinton's point was that Trump has insulted, demeaned and belittled women over their appearances for much of his life. Yes, he's actively helped women succeed at his businesses. But he's also been a disgusting pig to women. Alicia Machado is just one in a long line of women he's disparaged. Back to Machado. Countering articles from another non-traditional news site:
...After her reign as Miss Universe, Machado made headlines again when she was accused of being an accomplice in an attempted murder. The charges were ultimately dropped.
Machado’s boyfriend, Juan Rodriguez, shot and wounded his brother-in-law, Francisco Sbert, at a memorial service for Sbert’s wife in Venezuela in November 1997. Rodriguez accused Sbert of driving his sister to suicide, and attempted to kidnap his 11-year-old nephew. According to news reports at the time, witnesses said Machado drove Rodriguez away from the scene.
The charges against Machado were dropped in January 1998 over insufficient evidence, but Rodriguez was indicted. A few months later, the judge who cleared Machado said that she called him and made threats on his career and his life over her boyfriend’s indictment.
Machado denied this and said she merely called the judge to thank him. Those accusations appear to have gone nowhere, either.
Trump wants to talk about Bill Clinton's affairs. Trump cheated on Ivana with Marla Marples and cheated on Marla with Carla Bruni, IIRC. What does Donald have to say about his own infidelity? (emphasis is mine):
"Mr. Trump said he believed that his own marital history did not preclude him from waging such an attack. He became involved with Marla Maples while he was still married to his first wife, Ivana, who divorced him in 1991. He married Ms. Maples in 1993; they were divorced in 1999. He married his current wife, Melania, in 2005.
While Mr. Trump has bragged about his sexual exploits over the years, he charged in the interview that Mr. Clinton had numerous indiscretions that “brought shame onto the presidency, and Hillary Clinton was there defending him all along.”
But when asked if he had ever cheated on his wives, Mr. Trump said: “No — I never discuss it. I never discuss it. It was never a problem.”
Asked specifically about his affair with Ms. Maples when he was married to Ivana Trump, Mr. Trump said: “I don’t talk about it. I wasn’t president of the United States. I don’t talk about it. When you think of the fact that he was impeached, the country was in turmoil, turmoil, absolute turmoil. He lied with Monica Lewinsky and paid a massive penalty.”
Amazing how fast The Donald can run away from the truth with his mouth. Now that Trumpers is running for President, he can and should definitely talk about cheating in his marriages especially. He's apparently been happy to talk about that before...
You can listen to Donald talk about cheating on Marla while pretending to be a Trump spokesman:
and Hillary will turn herself into the FBI admitting she lied about everything regarding her server and Benghazi.
See, Trump should be a good candidate on his own. More and more folks are saying that he's inherently not.
And, if every time someone says he's not, the rejoinder is "Lookit Killary. She sux!" then it implies that 1) Trump is really not a good candidate and 2) his supporters haven't got any rejoinder to that except to try distraction.
Then his supporters' commentary becomes irrelevant, because it's not anything but knee-jerk contrariness. And, honestly, we need folks that can create the other side of the argument. There's no benefit to an absence of dialogue. It just needs to be honest and thoughtful.
That's pretty crazy. I was a little that HRC made such a big deal out of that particular case. It was one of many cases of Trump being a boor, but the thing is, as a participant in those beauty pageants, she was contractually obligated to maintain her weight. So he was technically in the clear. If he'd just been diplomatic and said "she's in violation of her employment contract," there wouldn't have been anything to be upset about. Other than the strange phenomenon of beauty pageants themselves.
That's pretty crazy. I was a little that HRC made such a big deal out of that particular case. It was one of many cases of Trump being a boor, but the thing is, as a participant in those beauty pageants, she was contractually obligated to maintain her weight. So he was technically in the clear. If he'd just been diplomatic and said "she's in violation of her employment contract," there wouldn't have been anything to be upset about. Other than the strange phenomenon of beauty pageants themselves.
Bruce Spingsteen 
that HRC made such a big deal out of that particular case. It was one of many cases of Trump being a boor, but the thing is, as a participant in those beauty pageants, she was contractually obligated to maintain her weight. So he was technically in the clear. If he'd just been diplomatic and said "she's in violation of her employment contract," there wouldn't have been anything to be upset about. Other than the strange phenomenon of beauty pageants themselves.
