Thanks for thoroughly exposing your thinking on the last number of years of politics. It appears you made up your mind about where you would cast your votes a long time ago. Facts and the names/backgrounds of current pols in a race, be damned.
Is it A Bad ThingTM to walk away from a target-rich environment? NO.
Remember: Co-exist. And we now resume our regularly scheduled meme postings...
I'm perfectly willing to co-exist with you. Heck I'm willing to have someone change my mind if they can provide relevant facts. Such facts don't exist, however, when it comes to Trump. "Totally unprepared and winging it" should be on the tombstone of his political career. Maybe someone could turn it into his song for a Broadway musical/farce, "Trump: the Musical".
Did I make up my mind about my vote a long time ago? Yes, pretty much after I started reading economic projections of Sanders' proposals and agreed with the vast majority of economists that Bernie's math didn't add up.
I laugh and shake my head when yet another politician rants about Washington and promises to clean it up. Trump and Sanders aren't that far apart in that respect. The speeches are entertaining, but the vast majority of people applauding don't stop to think that one politician promising to change Washington has to work within the system he condemns in order to get anything done and in the end doesn't change much about how Washington works.
Washington will change when voters keep watching and pressuring the politicians for change. Obama's 2008 run promised change. Occupy Wall Street was the beginning of an attempt at that. Sanders could choose to build a grassroots progressive/reform movement out of his candidacy, but it's not clear he wants to do so:
“He has the greatest appeal of any progressive candidate we’ve seen probably since Teddy Roosevelt, but that has to be converted into an on-the-ground machine that delivers,” Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont who ran his own insurgent campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2004, said about Mr. Sanders. “There have to be candidates who are supported. There have to be issues that are put forward. There have to be opportunities to put pressure on legislators. That is not the same thing as a political campaign.”
Thus far, Mr. Sanders has offered little support for a broader progressive movement, beyond using his email list to solicit money for a handful of congressional candidates, including Washington State’s Pramila Jayapal, New York’s Zephyr Teachout and Nevada’s Lucy Flores.
Even if he does try to redirect the energy behind his candidacy into a new liberal organization, the task may not be easy. His campaign has brought together disparate individuals and volunteer groups that might be inclined to go their separate ways after the primary. His regular diatribes against the influence of big money in politics could make it awkward, if not impossible, for him to raise money from wealthy liberals.
And Mr. Sanders himself does not have a reputation for leadership; in Congress, he is seen as more of a lone wolf, known more for introducing symbolic legislation than for methodically building constituencies.
...
Indeed, if the movement is going to endure beyond the primary, the responsibility for driving it forward may fall less on Mr. Sanders than on the next generation of progressives.
There is a Chinese proverb that comes to mind: "May you live in interesting times."
And taking Bernie is not an available option, in spite of the fact that he continues to waste everyone's time and efforts with a candidacy pre-destined to fail. You will never get a chance to vote for Bernie in the general. If you think that's an outside possibility, then you're resisting the facts before you.
It's either Trump or Clinton.
The Totally Unprepared and Winging It vs The Proven Liar Who Will Continue More Lies Like Same
Pick whichever at your country's peril. Maybe pick who might (fingers crossed!) do the lesser amount of damage?
I wrote of choosing Bernie as a hypothetical. Bernie did have an outside shot of getting the nomination for a while—pretty impressive for an angry old Jewish guy from a small NE state with little record of accomplishment during 25 years in Washington. Trump beat the establishment Republican party and much of its leadership, and he had even less than Bernie to recommend him. Pundits kept reassuring us all that Trump would never get the nomination. I hope you're not going to bore me with some wishful thinking about a Democratic conspiracy against Sanders.
"The Totally Unprepared and Winging It vs The Proven Liar Who Will Continue More Lies Like Same"
Even if your characterization of Clinton were exactly right, I'd take her over Trump every time. "Totally unprepared and winging it" pretty much sums Trump, and I would have preferred any other of the 17 GOP sad-sack candidates over Trump. Hell, even Ted Cruz would have made a more effective President.
"Totally unprepared and winging it" is a surefire way to screw up at any job. I'm not willing to go through another 9/11 or a war we didn't have to fight or The Great Recession because "totally unprepared and winging it" suckered Americans into voting for him.
Sorry you don't like Hillary. Frankly, I'm sick of the crap she takes. She's not as likable on TV as Bill or Barack. She does sound canned at times and she's just not a natural politician. But you apparently forget that the GOP pinned the same labels on Bill—a monster, a liar, a triangulator, will say/do anything to get elected—and he was an actually a very effective President.
So yes, I'll go with the candidate who was a partner in her law firm, a first lady in AK and the White House, a Senator and a Secretary of State. Bad news for you: all politicians lie. Washington lied as did Lincoln as has Obama. Good politicians don't do it all the time.
Trump? I don't if know he lies all the time because like Reagan I think he wills himself to believe stuff that isn't the truth. Or perhaps he's like Dubya who just couldn't be bothered to read and realize that reality was contradicting his beliefs.
Lets play a game. Time-warp with me now, back to the run up to the 2008 general. I'll re-use as many of your words as possible, and strike out those that I deem not applicable. If needed, I'll add in as few words as necessary, denoted in red. In changing things just slightly about, I'll totally change the justified target to something you would likely have found quite offensive, back in 2008.
Here we go: ——————————————-
Actually, kcar, it's not a bridge too far. Obama is an ignorant, unprepared and bigoted narcissist. He's also a habitual liar. Most people I know are not concerned so much about the direction he might point the country towards as much as they're worried that he will have no direction.
Obama is a con artist. Most of his supporters don't know that they're being sold a bill of goods or just haven't bothered to think that much about it.
Most Obama supporters I've encountered are like (insert your fave here): they're caught up in the spectacle of Obama's campaign and the uncritical coverage of it but they are silent as stones when asked to discuss Obama's proposed policies, their chances of being implemented and the impact of his policies if they do go into effect.
It's great to jump on a bandwagon but if that bandwagon is clearly headed over the cliff, it's perfectly OK to complain before the bandwagon drags you into the abyss with it.
Obama supporters absolutely have a right to engage in democracy. When they just settle for unthinking mobocracy, however, you get a little concerned.
Feel any bern yet? :-)
Oh. And just in case you are in any way confused, I'm neither a Trump or Clinton supporter. They are both miserable choices for POTUS, albeit for different reasons.
Nice try but your take doesn't add up.
Were there unthinking Obama's supporters back in '08? Sure. Unfortunately for you, Obama's campaign provided a wealth of information about his proposed policies, backed up by historic and projected data. Obama had a freakin' army of advisors in almost every field. Voters largely knew what they were getting with Obama. If motivated, you could really dig into the possibilities of an Obama administration before the election.
Trump? Not so much. DonDon contradicts himself from one week to the next and has no substance behind his wild promises to do things like deport 11 million people. He seems badly confused and uninformed on other matters like global warming. It takes years to build up a team of advisors and proposed policies for your possible terms as president, and that's before you start campaigning. Trump apparently has no clue about who would serve under him and what he could realistically do if president.
Has Obama disappointed some of his supporters? Has he failed to live up to some campaign promises? Sure. Welcome to politics. But here's an imperfect analogy: Obama is like an intelligent and well-prepared lawyer while Trump is like a drunk bartender slipping into senility and promising free drinks for life. Trump has disaster written all over him and I'm not talking about his looks.
I'll take Hillary over Trump or Bernie any day. Bernie talks a good game and makes big promises but realistic cost projections of his plan for free health care are so out of whack with his claims that I ruled him as a serious candidate a long time ago. America needs gadflies and rabble-rousers like Sanders and Trump...just not as President.
You failed to address my earlier reply that essentially implies you are trying to silence those who do not think like you. Because, well, you think they are not as 'informed' as you. Or something like that.
Lets play a game. Time-warp with me now, back to the run up to the 2008 general. I'll re-use as many of your words as possible, and strike out those that I deem not applicable. If needed, I'll add in as few words as necessary, denoted in red.
False equivalency. Trump deserves our scorn for his hostile takeover without a coherent plan for running our nation. Obama and Romney might not be good choices for President, depending on your perspective, but they're not as inappropriate as Trump.
Once upon a time in an alternate reality far, far, away, there was a certain kind of people who would take every opportunity to talk about the evil and increasingly pervasive scourge of other people being
How condescending of you. How would you feel about hearing those words in the last cycle re whoever it was you were supporting?
Democracy dude. It's a thing. Some folks enjoy exercising their right to engage in it.
You're entitled to your opinion on how you feel about any given candidate - that's a good thing - it means you're engaged at some level, in the process. However ... to suggest that anyone choosing to support a candidate not in your (or your group of friends) favour should not be proud of their level of engagement/support/what have you ... hey that's a bridge too far.
Actually, Beaker, it's not a bridge too far. Trump is an ignorant, unprepared and bigoted narcissist. He's also a habitual liar. Most people I know are not concerned so much about the direction he might point the country towards as they're worried that he will have no direction.
Trump is a con artist. Most of his supporters don't know that they're being sold a bill of goods or just haven't bothered to think that much about it.
Most Trump supporters I've encountered are like rotekz: they're caught up in the spectacle of Trump's campaign and the uncritical coverage of it but they are silent as stones when asked to discuss Trump's proposed policies, their chances of being implemented and the impact of his policies if they do go into effect.
It's great for Trump fans to jump on a bandwagon but if that bandwagon is clearly headed over the cliff, it's perfectly OK for non-fans to complain before the bandwagon drags them into the abyss with it.
Trump supporters absolutely have a right to engage in democracy. When they just settle for unthinking mobocracy, however, you get a little concerned.
(...) Back to Milo Yiannopoulos: Sorry, I'm not going to waste 28 minutes of my life listening to a "journalist" who's dropped out of two colleges and seems to be involved a number of dodgy propositions. There is a video of Yiannopoulos at Bucknell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu5_m2PHIZg
where he says that he likes Trump "because he is a gigantic middle finger at an establishment that has failed" (about 2:20 in). He says he also wants "the existing structure of parties ripped apart and something new to be imagined, something new to be constructed" (about 3:40 in)...which he apparently hopes will be some coalition of liberal, conservative and libertarian voters to create a new libertarian party.
So apparently Milo thinks Trump is a libertarian, which would be news to Trump. Whatever Milo's explanation of Trump's popularity looks like, I doubt it has anything to do with Trump's policies or Milo's feeble understanding of them. Btw, giving the establishment the middle finger gets nothing done, especially when you're trying to run a country through or alongside the establishment.
At best he comes across as third-rate imitation of Hitchens (with the studiously posh accent), but with considerably more trite contrarian views ("Dubya was the greatest president ever"). The problem is that he's got neither the erudition nor the IQ to be anything remotely like Hitchens.
Like his colleague Delingpole he's merely a professional Breitbart troll. In the mold of Ann Coulter. However, there's clearly a market for such inanity and shock value, foremost among the Trumpists, and on various media, where catchy zingers and sound bites (as opposed to well-reasoned arguments) make for great entertainment and easily memorized snippets (however false) for the enthralled followers and sycophants. Style over substance, much like this topic's subject.
How condescending of you. How would you feel about hearing those words in the last cycle re whoever it was you were supporting?
Democracy dude. It's a thing. Some folks enjoy exercising their right to engage in it.
You're entitled to your opinion on how you feel about any given candidate - that's a good thing - it means you're engaged at some level, in the process. However ... to suggest that anyone choosing to support a candidate not in your (or your group of friends) favour should not be proud of their level of engagement/support/what have you ... hey that's a bridge too far.
It's possible that Rotekz is a well-crafted bot programmed to post Pro-Trump stuff. Or just a guy paid to shill. Or someone inevitably bound to run into the brick wall of disillusionment.
I haven't seen anyone yet make a rational (vs emotional) case that Trump can lead our nation to greatness.
Supporting Trump is a consequence of a ruined GOP that's alienated its base. How can it be for the "common man" when it's anti-union and pro-big business (with fewer safety regulations)? How can the GOP be American when it's disrespectful of a twice-elected President? Especially when it began his first term by saying "one term President" before he'd done anything?
So all we're seeing now is a heartfelt, guttural response by a lot of people who hate their choices. Some pick Bernie, some pick Trump. Some are resigned to Hillary, but it doesn't seem like folks really love her like they loved Obama.
But, once you've picked a horse and tied your ego to whether or not it wins, you promote it.
No one - no one - should be proud that they're backing Trump. Instead of trying to convince themselves and others that he's a good choice, They should've taken the time and energy (or at least posted a lot of dank memes) to influence the GOP to be a better party long before he performed his hostile takeover. But they let the infighting continue and the party is now, obviously, irrelevant.
Neither. It tickles me pink that you and others attempt to rationalise Trump support in this way.
Not that you'll watch it but here's a very good explanation of Trumps popularity in this election cycle.
Let's put Milo aside for a moment. By now, most of us know why Trump is popular with some voters. My speculation about your identity and/or motivation has little to do with explanations for support of Trump and far more to do with your consistent lack of substance.
As far as I can tell, you post only about Trump's image, poll numbers and media stunts. You have nothing to say about what Trump would do as President because, I think, you have no idea. That's pretty sad for someone who posts as much as you do.
Why do you want Trump to be President? What good do you think he's going to do for the country? Can you back up your opinion?
You might want to read up on Trump's proposed policies and their chances of implementation and successful outcome. Right now you just come across as an uninformed regurgitator of pointless hype.
Back to Milo Yiannopoulos: Sorry, I'm not going to waste 28 minutes of my life listening to a "journalist" who's dropped out of two colleges and seems to be involved a number of dodgy propositions. There is a video of Yiannopoulos at Bucknell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu5_m2PHIZg
where he says that he likes Trump "because he is a gigantic middle finger at an establishment that has failed" (about 2:20 in). He says he also wants "the existing structure of parties ripped apart and something new to be imagined, something new to be constructed" (about 3:40 in)...which he apparently hopes will be some coalition of liberal, conservative and libertarian voters to create a new libertarian party.
So apparently Milo thinks Trump is a libertarian, which would be news to Trump. Whatever Milo's explanation of Trump's popularity looks like, I doubt it has anything to do with Trump's policies or Milo's feeble understanding of them. Btw, giving the establishment the middle finger gets nothing done, especially when you're trying to run a country through or alongside the establishment.
The quote is wholly fabricated. Clinton was never quoted in theRegister making that statement, and it appears she has not made such a statement anywhere else.
Clinton campaigned heavily in Iowa throughout the summer and fall of 2015, and Register reporters and the paper’s editorial board interviewed her several times. But she was not in Iowa on Aug. 8, when she allegedly made the statement. Clinton’s first visit to Iowa in the month of August occurred on Aug. 14, followed by public events on Aug. 15 and Aug. 26.
A review of the Register’s archives show Clinton was neither interviewed nor quoted directly on Aug. 8 or in the days immediately following.
Do you have any integrity? honor? decency?
I don't sense maliciousness in Rotekz's posts. Just a lot of unblinking enthusiasm for a scam that he hasn't figured out yet.
It's possible that Rotekz is a well-crafted bot programmed to post Pro-Trump stuff. Or just a guy paid to shill. Or someone inevitably bound to run into the brick wall of disillusionment.
Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. (...)
One of the more enjoyable books of my youth was Little Big Man. Among many memorable scenes in the book, one favorite involves the protagonists' experience working with a charlatan and snake oil salesman named Allardyce T. Merriweather. One night Crabb, the protagonist, expresses cynicism about the business they engage in, and whether it is immoral. Merriweather doubles down:
"Listen to me, a two legged creature will believe anything and the more preposterous the better: whales speak French at the bottom of the sea. The horses of Arabia have silver wings. Pygmies mate with elephants in darkest Africa. I have sold all those propositions" (If Merriweather were an ambitious charlatan, he could have boasted of being able to build a wall between the US and Mexico and get Mexico to pay for it)
His boasting is interrupted by angry townspeople who confront the two over the contents of the "medicine" they sell, which has sickened several people. Merriweather and Crab are tarred and feathered, and then (as customary) paraded around town on a wooden rail. During their rail ride, Merriweather attempts to make light of their predicament:
"Got caught Jack, that's all. Life contains a particle of risk".
Jack is having none of it: "Mr. Merriweather, you don't know when you're licked!"
"LIcked? I'm not licked. Tarred and feathered, that's all". Tarred and feathered, indeed.
We contacted Edward Lengel, editor in chief of the Papers of George Washington project at the University of Virginia. He said "there is no evidence that Washington ever wrote or said these words, or any like them." Lengel cautioned that it’s impossible to prove a negative, but he added that he’s "as certain as he can be" that the quote did not originate from George Washington.