Trump is "a clear and present danger"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ivan Seeking, Aug 9, 2016.

  1. ForrestDean Registered Senior Member

    Well, like I said before, we are responsible for everything that happens in this world. If in the very unlikely event that there ever is an unprovoked nuclear war then we are all responsible for allowing that to happen. If there is anyone who can deny that or completely disagrees with that, or if there is anyone who believes we don't have the power to prevent such an event, then congratulations, you are a very well indoctrinated and obedient servant of the current System.

    As far as morals. I can very easily live by any and all types and variations of morality to my choosing, but I am not bound by any of them.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. douwd20 Registered Senior Member

    And yes we already knew it...

    BALTIMORE — Hillary Clinton may have been unwise to say half of Donald Trump’s supporters are racists and other “deplorables.” But she wasn’t wrong.

    If anything, when it comes to Trump’s racist support, she might have low-balled the number.

    Yes, half of Trump supporters are racist

    Diversity is bad. Homogeneity is good.
    spidergoat likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    That's true, in a way. Although in our system of government less than 50% of people can be responsible for making the decision to elect someone incompetent to a position where they could start that war.
    Sounds convenient.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    The conspiracy is that there is an election happening at all.

    On the table today, the theory that Hillary Clinton has been fielding a clone of herself in public.
    And that her illness could be the work of a Putin poisoning attempt (successful apparently), to make sure Vlad's buddy wins. What does a guy have to do huh?

    Then there's the one about the reason all those emails were deleted is because they had too much information about Clinton's real state of health.

    I myself like to think that the sighting of mysterious clowns in those woods is because Donald Trump is the Republican candidate. I'll let you work that one out.
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    I do apologize for failing to realise we were discussing you and not "the cause of the two wars" you referred to in your question.

    Maybe I should have included "a heavy dose of national egocentricity"


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (re: show of force and solidarity in response to the recent Korean Nuclear program testing)
    I do hope that the "Janitor" knows what he is doing!

    Imagine a Janitor named Trump (who has publicly stated his love of war) is in control of such a force!?
    ( given his well published impulsive behavior)
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2016
    joepistole likes this.
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    The B1B Bomber built in the early 70's could carry a total of:
    24 * B83 Thermo N Bombs ( now superseded? )
    Each B83 Bomb had the capacity of approximately 75 * Fat boys ( Hiroshima )
    1*fat boy killed approximately 100k people in Hiroshima with in two days of being exploded.
    so a quick math tells you:

    24 B83 * 75 * 100K = ? ( a lot of people )
    and that's citing superceded munitions and using an almost obsolete platform.

    Just one plane...mmm
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    One can only hope that Trump supporters can eventually "see" who and what it is they are supporting...
    joepistole likes this.
  12. ForrestDean Registered Senior Member

    Hehe, the election process - a nice little heated, competitive game where the participants(the members of society) believe for a short time that they have control of how our nation will be managed. I'm not into sports. I also have no interest in competition. But if you ask if I vote, then my answer is yes, every single day just like everyone else.

    Yes, it is. I am free to pick and choose whatever moral I wish and that I feel is appropriate at the time. Same goes for beliefs.
  13. ForrestDean Registered Senior Member

    Yep, that certainly sounds like a lot of carnage. Every now and then the human body needs a good purge. The global human society is no different. The planet itself is also no different. Sometimes a living organism needs to heal itself in one way or another. The conflicts around the world certainly do seem to be increasing a lot lately, or it could just be the media over glamorizing it.

    Considering the current mindset and self-serving lifestyle of today's society with no sign of changing, the Georgia Guidestones could possibly one day actually be appropriate.

    There's a wave and a rhythm to everything, to all aspects of life, and nations are not excluded from this natural aspect of Universe. Nations and societies rise and fall all the time, as has been clearly demonstrated time and time again in our history.
  14. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    But wait, is everyone saying that this time, perhaps enough Americans who can vote will be voting for an actual clown?

    Some guy who puts on makeup and a painted on smile every day, and tries to convince everyone he's happy? Happy about what though?

    And what about when the clown doesn't look happy, what isn't he happy about? Is it his appalling lack of general knowledge and of what's going on even in basic terms, in the world at large? Is it because he knows his world is that limited, he only knows how to fake it, or rather, how to bullshit away about whatever you name. But he clearly knows nothing except how to lie convincingly.

    This clown could be the president of the goddam United States? I wonder for how long, if it really happens.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2016
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Of course that hypothetical situation would be a concern. That concern would be a factor in placing one's vote, in the first place. And the voting is of course one of those methods you referred to, here:
    So by your reasoning, then, it appears at least some of the 7 billion do deserve better. So that's settled.
  16. douwd20 Registered Senior Member

    That's unlikely. I mean we are over a year into hearing almost daily the jaw-dropping nonsense that comes from his mouth and so far nothing has dampened his support. He had a little dip when he went after the Gold Star Family but he has rebounded unbelievably.
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Understating the obvious perhaps...
    What I see is a global loss or threat of losing "self restraint" (mass hysteria) and Trump is a classic example of it. More impulsive, less worried about consequences, excessive brutality and extreme fear/paranoia manifesting in behavior...

    Have you ever thought the word "unprecedented" could be used so often?
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    yeah... unprecedented recovery... just like his first ladies plagiarism was quickly overlooked...
    Imagine .. every time she is making a speech as first lady, people are going to have to work out whether she is plagiarizing or not...(and what does it take for someone to so blatantly make that mistake in the first place)
    but this is over looked because no one ( including his supporters) seriously expects Trump and his first lady to be ever put to the test.
    They thought the same about the current Philippines president...a president who breaks the law by condoning and inciting extrajudicial killings of "SUSPECTED" drug traffickers and users and impulsively insults his most important ally.
  19. douwd20 Registered Senior Member


    Blame 24/7 cable news as a primary factor. Smart phones pushing 'Breaking News' into your life. Is there anywhere you can go where cable news isn't pipped in like air? Fear begets big ratings which then begets the incessant need for more fear. It creates an amazing feedback loop. And politicians hungry to win understand this all too well. Trump's acceptance speech was classic fear and only I can help! It's hard to even imagine a time when news only happened once a day. The "news" is really what are the most awful things that happened today stay tuned ladies and gentlemen you won't want to miss this.

    Thanks to the 24-hour news cycle, alerts of shootings, plane crashes, ISIS beheadings, crime, war and human rights violations are constant — and this incessant news of violence and destruction is surely having an impact.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2016
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Well, Anything Is Possible

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Americans are capable of some rather breathtaking insanity.

    To the other, this would be one of those threshold events.

    By the way, did you see the president today? There was actually a living room dispute at my place Monday night about "locking knees" when standing that broke out during a fainting reel↱ in Maddow's A block.

    And then there was today; Maddow↱ couldn't resist the footage of Obama responding to the fact that someone fainted at a rally in Pennsylvania: "I love you, too, but bend your knees."

    Actually, it's kind of interesting; something might have happened after the Lauer catastrophe. The mainstream press is having a series of quiet, trembling moments with itself; the bloggers for the mainstream press verge on cracking up―Kevin Drum↱ offers a pretty good survey of what's happening left of center. It really is worth highlighting and reiterating Jonathan Chait's↱ moment of reckoning:

    I had not taken seriously the possibility that Donald Trump could win the presidency until I saw Matt Lauer host an hour-long interview with the two major-party candidates. Lauer's performance was not merely a failure, it was horrifying and shocking. The shock, for me, was the realization that most Americans inhabit a very different news environment than professional journalists. I not only consume a lot of news, since it's my job, I also tend to focus on elite print-news sources. Most voters, and all the more so undecided voters, subsist on a news diet supplied by the likes of Matt Lauer. And the reality transmitted to them from Lauer matches the reality of the polls, which is a world in which Clinton and Trump are equivalently flawed.

    In recent days, though, the stuff I'm usually attending has penetrated other markets; one of my tests for how important something is in the news cycle is whether, when, and how I hear of something coming through the subsistence news diet. And, yes, the Clinton-side pushback appears to have had some effect. There is a rising tide in support of Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" comments, as if people are just sick and tired of hearing from Trump's hate crew; and the "back the hell off saying a word about a woman working herself until she's sick, dude!" response has been more prominently featured than I expected.

    So, sure, I might suggest a threshold, but Lauer's flop heard 'round the world might mark the beginning of the electorate's pivot back toward serious consideration of the voters' marketplace.

    Or maybe things will get back to normal by week's end.

    Or maybe the message should be read loudly and clearly: Stay home, Hillary; let the man do all the talking and yes, he will, indeed, make the case for you.

    It's an interesting consideration, especially since I keep hearing about Donald Trump's strong campaign skills despite the dearth of evidence in favor of such a proposition and the mountain of evidence against it:

    The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent made the case this morning that the more the national media focuses on the racism pervading Trump's campaign, the better it is for Team Clinton. I completely agree. But let's also not lose sight of the fact that this is the fight Trump himself wants to be waging right now―even if that means stepping on coverage of Clinton's pneumonia.

    If there's tactical wisdom behind this strategy, it's hiding well.


    See, the thing is I'm drowning in the powdered drink mix, or so a libertarian told me, recently. And maybe he has a point; I just don't see the genius about picking a losing fight in such a manner as to draw attention from the issue that has an opponent reeling like that.

    Still, though, we might have just witnessed a pivot nexus of some manner; watch what happens when Clinton returns to the trail on Thursday. Maybe she should take the rest of the week off and let everyone catch their breath.


    Benen, Steve. "Team Trump picks the wrong fight at the wrong time". msnbc. 13 September 2016. 13 September 2016.

    Chait, Jonathan. "Matt Lauer’s Pathetic Interview of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Is the Scariest Thing I’ve Seen in This Campaign". New York. 7 September 2016. 13 September 2016.

    Drum, Kevin. "Tell Us How You Really Feel, Kevin". Mother Jones. 8 September 2016. 13 September 2016.

    Maddow, Rachel. "History shows long evolution of interest in politicians' health". The Rachel Maddow Show. msnbc. 12 September 2016. 13 September 2016.

    —————. "New Trump spectacle looms with TV doctor appointment". The Rachel Maddow Show. mnsbc. 13 September 2016. 13 September 2016.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Work backward from the results. Consider the question: he's gaining in the polls, so what is he doing right?

    Or this: does Trump want medical and age issues to join him at center stage?

    Her poll lead is down to four points. Barely margin of error. And the reason was a gain by Trump - her numbers held steady, pretty much, and any losses by her, from the health issues or whatever, haven't figured in yet. And that's without figuring the voter suppression, traditionally low turnout in her base other than women, and the usual odd discordance between the exit polls and the recorded results on the no-paper-trail machines - which has always in the past favored the Republican candidate. Will this be the year the machine bias favors the Democrat? Not the way to bet.

    Because this is the central problem:
    !? I'm not sure how that could be parodied: apparently the Jonathan Chaits and Kevin Drums of this world have just now, thirty years after Reagan, ten years after W was re-elected - caught on to the nature of the US political media and the Republican core voting base. It's the last couple months of the 2016 campaign, and the media - the left, supposedly, media - is beginning - just beginning - to consider the scale at which maybe things are not ok in journalism world.

    The US news media is full of people who are just now beginning to take seriously the notion that Donald Trump could win this thing. Holy mother of all turtles.
    The problem? Things like WaPo editorial writers's opinions being mistaken for evidence, and poll numbers being treated as aberrations.

    Are you sure that having the elitist media focus on their idea of Trump's racism -in their inimitable way, which includes canceling Larry Wilmore's show while saying a lot of vaguely PC things in a condescending tone of mockery, and using words like "incredible" a lot when describing their feelings - is going to benefit Team Clinton?

    Trump seems to have managed to not shoot himself in the foot for a couple of days now - and his poll numbers climbed. They also climb whenever Clinton does an interview or makes a public speech. And this is no recent pattern - he's been more or less steadily climbing in the national polls for a solid year now. And his gaining ground is entirely his personal doing; he's got nothing for ground game, little in way of competent and professional help, not much for money really, he keeps making gaffes and mistakes, - and he keeps gaining on what has been billed for thirty years now as the most powerful and competent electoral machine in the US.
    The less time she spends in the spotlight, the better she looks and the better the odds that Trump will shoot himself in the foot.

    Eight weeks to go. The Donald is within reach - if he can quit shooting himself in the foot, he's probably got it. Can he? Cross your fingers.
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    nice shot
    Real break from the republican platform
    He ain't a republican.
    In some ways, he is more progressive than hillary hawk Clinton.

    25 years ago we had deductions for child care(which scored me a 1k refund from an irs audit-----pleasant surprise that)
    The tax code has changed since then.
    We need more progressive/liberal legislation like Trump is proposing.
    Which begs the question:
    Does the president have direct control over the unemployment insurance fund?
  23. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    It is up to Congress to pass any legislation that changes what already is in force today into something new and different. If Congress doesn't write the bill that makes any changes then any changes will never happen. So both parties can say anything about their way they want things to change but the Congress is the only ones who can do so. So all of this talk is moot until Congress actually writes it as a bill.

Share This Page