The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[Cole Younger]

Smitty you make some great points and I agree with everything you said except for the part about Black Lives Matter. They have zero credibility or legitimacy at this point as far as I'm concerned. I know there are decent folks attached to it but the movement as a whole is a racist mob intent on bullying anyone who doesn't comply with them 100%.

Iowan I made a similar observation a while back. The democrats are currently acting exactly like the republicans acted in 2008 and while I don't want Trump to win, I can't help but find it kind of funny. It's all fun and games until your particular "others" appear to be emboldened and poised to take power. That said, I don't think our lives will be much different one way or the other. I know nobody here cares about the latest Wikileaks findings but it just reinforced to me what I already knew. The democrats are absolutely the republicans equal when it comes to being a big steaming pile of dung as a party. No matter who wins not much would have been different if the other had won. If you shook Trump and Hillary out of the same sack you would have a hard time sorting them out,

The parties are what they are and I agree that on the whole they suck equally, except sometimes in different ways and those differences may make one party or the other more palatable to one group or another. But bottom line, they are empty, corrupt organizations that don't deserve support. You may feel more virulently about it but I'm pretty sure we're at least on the same page about this.

Which is why I'm so surprised that you don't see Trump as something new and different. To me he is so obviously beyond the pale, so obviously unqualified to be president, so dangerous and unstable that I just can't understand how anyone can say that there's no difference between him and X. Put another way, even assuming that most of what's said about Hillary is true, her lies, misadventures, bad decisions, mistakes, what have you are all within the kinds of things that politicians do (or don't do). That's not to excuse any of it, it's just to say that it's of a kind, not unique. To me Trump seems to be out of a different mold altogether. Obviously you don't feel that way and I'm not asking you to justify your POV or trying to put you on any kind of defensive although you're obviously welcome to respond in any manner you wish. For me it's just another chapter in my continuing attempt to figure out what the fuck is going on in the political universe because I just don't get it.

Oh I don't get it either. I mean I'm sure if we had time to go over it we could both see a definite chain of events that got us to where we find ourselves but it probably goes back a lot farther than either of us realizes.

The only point where I disagree with you is that trump is something new and different. Before I go one step more I want to clarify something. When I say he's not something new and different I don't mean I think you're wrong that he sucks. What I'm saying is, I disagree that he's unprecedented in his sucktitude. Put another way, I think he's awful, it's just that I think Hillary is every bit as awful. I think she is just as dishonest, just as willing to use and discard people to achieve more power for herself. I think that if Trump is a sociopath as he's been accused of being (and he very well may be exactly that) I absolutely think she is too. I won't get into all the different reasons I think this (unless you want to hear it) because I realize some of the things I think are really important don't matter all that much to most folks here. That's not a value judgement just part and parcel with different people who have different political philosophies. There's definitely overlap but there things about Hillary that I take major issue with that most here probably don't view as significant. I think that's the difference. I'm not denying that Trump comes with alarming issues particular to him. What I am saying is, when I average it all out, I don't see where one is any less slimey and soulless than the other. With that in mind, I just don't believe Trump is the apocalypse baring down on us.

I don't think he's qualified to be president either but I don't think the man in Oval Office is qualified to be president. Before anyone goes there, that's not some stupid birther nonsense on my part. I realize he had held elected office and Trump never has. But the president's list of qualifications was pretty light next to John McCain's in my opinion.

I realize Trump isn't run I g against Barak Obama I'm just explaining why I don't think his lack of qualifications makes him uniquely repulsive in a group of repulsive people.

If you see trump as something uniquely awful I can understand that. I just don't. She makes me recoil every bit as much as he does and I think she is every bit the hollow shell of a human that he is. They don't live in the same world that we live in. And that brings us to the crux of it for me. I think in general, politicians are horrible people. Only someone driven by arrogance, greed, a lust for power etc. could want the jobs they seek. I know they aren't all that way but I think most of them are.

I know it seems completely different to you but in 2008 most conservatives felt the exact same way about Barak Obama that you feel about Donald Trump. He seemed like some sort of nightmare scenario dreamed up by the democrats. He specifically spoke of ""fundamentally transforming" America and I'll admit that scared the shit out of me when he said it.

Eight years later, none of the people who thought Obama was the end of this country or life as they had known it can point to any clear and specific examples of how their lives are much the worse having nearly come out the other side of what they thought was the end of America.

im hoping the crap sandwich we see standing before us as our choices for president is what will get us on track to righting the ship. I hope we all look at those two, then look at each other, shake hands, and agree, "never again."

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

im hoping the crap sandwich we see standing before us as our choices for president is what will get us on track to righting the ship. I hope we all look at those two, then look at each other, shake hands, and agree, "never again."

[beantownbubba]

Only someone driven by arrogance, greed, a lust for power etc. could want the jobs they seek.

The fundamental dilemma. A real Catch 22.

[beantownbubba]

I don't think he's qualified to be president either but I don't think the man in Oval Office is qualified to be president. Before anyone goes there, that's not some stupid birther nonsense on my part. I realize he had held elected office and Trump never has. But the president's list of qualifications was pretty light next to John McCain's in my opinion.

Just to clarify:

The fact is that virtually nobody is "qualified" to be president in terms of experience. The job is pretty darn unique and extraordinarily difficult. In that sense, Hillary Clinton may be the most qualified candidate ever in terms of objective criteria (i.e. the jobs she's had, not how's she's done them): 8 years in the white house as among the most powerful first ladies ever (in terms of being a part of the president's actual governing team), high elected federal office and secretary of state, probably the cabinet experience most useful for a president and to understate the case, tempered by experience of the fishbowl and criticism to which presidents are subject.

What I was referring to was Trump's temperament and personality. Thin skinned, vindictive & cruel on a very personal basis, unable to manage a team, uninterested in detail, unwilling to learn and dismissive of facts and context, flummoxed by nuance, lack of respect for people, lack of respect for process and other viewpoints (this could be a positive, especially for a "change agent," but not at the extremes that Trump represents, imho), horrible judgment about people as it relates to selecting staff/support which comes from his dismissive approach to other people generally, volatile & impulsive, a "cheater's view of the world" (hard to put into a few words, but I'm thinking about his casual approach to ethics in business, lack of trustworthiness and that sort of thing) etc etc.

Every candidate has some "holes" in their makeup; there is no perfect candidate. But I do not believe that there has ever been a candidate (certainly not in my adult lifetime) so totally devoid of positives and so chock full of negatives in his/her basic personality as it relates to what one might want to see in a president.

[jr29]

I don't think he's qualified to be president either but I don't think the man in Oval Office is qualified to be president. Before anyone goes there, that's not some stupid birther nonsense on my part. I realize he had held elected office and Trump never has. But the president's list of qualifications was pretty light next to John McCain's in my opinion.

Just to clarify:

The fact is that virtually nobody is "qualified" to be president in terms of experience. The job is pretty darn unique and extraordinarily difficult. In that sense, Hillary Clinton may be the most qualified candidate ever in terms of objective criteria (i.e. the jobs she's had, not how's she's done them): 8 years in the white house as among the most powerful first ladies ever (in terms of being a part of the president's actual governing team), high elected federal office and secretary of state, probably the cabinet experience most useful for a president and to understate the case, tempered by experience of the fishbowl and criticism to which presidents are subject.

What I was referring to was Trump's temperament and personality. Thin skinned, vindictive & cruel on a very personal basis, unable to manage a team, uninterested in detail, unwilling to learn and dismissive of facts and context, flummoxed by nuance, lack of respect for people, lack of respect for process and other viewpoints (this could be a positive, especially for a "change agent," but not at the extremes that Trump represents, imho), horrible judgment about people as it relates to selecting staff/support which comes from his dismissive approach to other people generally, volatile & impulsive, a "cheater's view of the world" (hard to put into a few words, but I'm thinking about his casual approach to ethics in business, lack of trustworthiness and that sort of thing) etc etc.

Every candidate has some "holes" in their makeup; there is no perfect candidate. But I do not believe that there has ever been a candidate (certainly not in my adult lifetime) so totally devoid of positives and so chock full of negatives in his/her basic personality as it relates to what one might want to see in a president.

Trump isn't even familiar with the Geneva Convention. Rand Paul exposed that early in the debates.

[Tequila Cowboy]

What I was referring to was Trump's temperament and personality. Thin skinned, vindictive & cruel on a very personal basis, unable to manage a team, uninterested in detail, unwilling to learn and dismissive of facts and context, flummoxed by nuance, lack of respect for people, lack of respect for process and other viewpoints (this could be a positive, especially for a "change agent," but not at the extremes that Trump represents, imho), horrible judgment about people as it relates to selecting staff/support which comes from his dismissive approach to other people generally, volatile & impulsive, a "cheater's view of the world" (hard to put into a few words, but I'm thinking about his casual approach to ethics in business, lack of trustworthiness and that sort of thing) etc etc.

Every candidate has some "holes" in their makeup; there is no perfect candidate. But I do not believe that there has ever been a candidate (certainly not in my adult lifetime) so totally devoid of positives and so chock full of negatives in his/her basic personality as it relates to what one might want to see in a president.

I don't know when it was made but there is a History Channel series called "The Presidents" and for each President it starts with a little blurb on their basic bio, spouse, political affiliation and whatnot and one of the categories is "management style" and it's always one word like autocratic, delegator, consensus builder, etc. It's kind of hard to find one for Trump unless maybe it's "asshole". This is a man who is vindictive, doesn't pay people he contracts to work for him, has sexually harassed female employees and has had numerous businesses fail. I had someone ask me the other day what I thought of his actual policies. I had no answer in that he doesn't seem to have actual policies so all you can base a judgement on is his temperament, actions and view of the world and in all of that it is clear this man is not qualified to be President. It's not outlandish to think that a few ill chosen words from a President Trump could spark an international incident. That's the primary issue here. After that you have the statement uncovered in his VP search that he will delegate nearly everything to his VP leaving him as what? A walking time bomb/figurehead. Yeah, I don't think any of this is hyperbole.

[Tequila Cowboy]

This Bill O'Reilly business is beyond the pale. People actually justifying what he said and saying things like "yeah, slavery happened but we shouldn't have to be reminded of it all the time" (actual comment btw). As the kids say today I can't even.

[beantownbubba]

This Bill O'Reilly business is beyond the pale. People actually justifying what he said and saying things like "yeah, slavery happened but we shouldn't have to be reminded of it all the time" (actual comment btw). As the kids say today I can't even.

Horrible. Just insane. The world is upside down and inside out. Where's the throwing up emoticon when you need it?

[Zip City]

This Bill O'Reilly business is beyond the pale. People actually justifying what he said and saying things like "yeah, slavery happened but we shouldn't have to be reminded of it all the time" (actual comment btw). As the kids say today I can't even.

It stems from the "people who call us racists are the REAL racists" mindset

[Tequila Cowboy]

This Bill O'Reilly business is beyond the pale. People actually justifying what he said and saying things like "yeah, slavery happened but we shouldn't have to be reminded of it all the time" (actual comment btw). As the kids say today I can't even.

Horrible. Just insane. The world is upside down and inside out. Where's the throwing up emoticon when you need it?

You're welcome.

[Tequila Cowboy]

Some actual comments from the NYT

Her blanket statement that she lives in a house built by slaves is true but she forgot to mention the free blacks and whites that also helped build it

Yes it does matter that they weren't all slaves, she's discrediting the work that others had put into building it only to support her narrative. Also, the slaves were paid to do the work

Members of which political party never owned a slave ever, not one? #whydemsfeelsoguilty

It's not justifiable, and it ended....because people finally realized how evil it was. But we don't need to keep being reminded as if we still believe in this today..it wasn't only slavescalone who built the White House , but tradesman from Ireland Scotland, and some of the states such as Virginia

Yes because REMEMBER THE VIRGINIANS!

We are so fucking lost as a people.

[tinnitus photography]

I don't think he's qualified to be president either but I don't think the man in Oval Office is qualified to be president. Before anyone goes there, that's not some stupid birther nonsense on my part. I realize he had held elected office and Trump never has. But the president's list of qualifications was pretty light next to John McCain's in my opinion.

Just to clarify:

The fact is that virtually nobody is "qualified" to be president in terms of experience. The job is pretty darn unique and extraordinarily difficult. In that sense, Hillary Clinton may be the most qualified candidate ever in terms of objective criteria (i.e. the jobs she's had, not how's she's done them): 8 years in the white house as among the most powerful first ladies ever (in terms of being a part of the president's actual governing team), high elected federal office and secretary of state, probably the cabinet experience most useful for a president and to understate the case, tempered by experience of the fishbowl and criticism to which presidents are subject.

What I was referring to was Trump's temperament and personality. Thin skinned, vindictive & cruel on a very personal basis, unable to manage a team, uninterested in detail, unwilling to learn and dismissive of facts and context, flummoxed by nuance, lack of respect for people, lack of respect for process and other viewpoints (this could be a positive, especially for a "change agent," but not at the extremes that Trump represents, imho), horrible judgment about people as it relates to selecting staff/support which comes from his dismissive approach to other people generally, volatile & impulsive, a "cheater's view of the world" (hard to put into a few words, but I'm thinking about his casual approach to ethics in business, lack of trustworthiness and that sort of thing) etc etc.

Every candidate has some "holes" in their makeup; there is no perfect candidate. But I do not believe that there has ever been a candidate (certainly not in my adult lifetime) so totally devoid of positives and so chock full of negatives in his/her basic personality as it relates to what one might want to see in a president.

yep, great post, Bubba.

I was not an HRC booster, but you cannot refute her credentials.

[tinnitus photography]

what in the fuck's name is going on w/ the Right? why don't they just put on white hoods and be done w/ it.

"Slaves that worked [at the White House] were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government." - Bill O'Reilly

[Tequila Cowboy]

"This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent," Hillary for America policy adviser Jake Sullivan said in a statement. "That's not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue."

Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton's email

[4sooner]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.........
Pence says ""Russia faces Serious consequences" if they are behind the DNC hack

[beantownbubba]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.........
Pence says ""Russia faces Serious consequences" if they are behind the DNC hack

Left foot (so to speak)? May I introduce you to the right foot?

[Iowan]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.........
Pence says ""Russia faces Serious consequences" if they are behind the DNC hack

By "serious consequences" Pence means they're sending complimentary champagne and hookers to the Kremlin.

[Cole Younger]

I don't think he's qualified to be president either but I don't think the man in Oval Office is qualified to be president. Before anyone goes there, that's not some stupid birther nonsense on my part. I realize he had held elected office and Trump never has. But the president's list of qualifications was pretty light next to John McCain's in my opinion.

Just to clarify:

The fact is that virtually nobody is "qualified" to be president in terms of experience. The job is pretty darn unique and extraordinarily difficult. In that sense, Hillary Clinton may be the most qualified candidate ever in terms of objective criteria (i.e. the jobs she's had, not how's she's done them): 8 years in the white house as among the most powerful first ladies ever (in terms of being a part of the president's actual governing team), high elected federal office and secretary of state, probably the cabinet experience most useful for a president and to understate the case, tempered by experience of the fishbowl and criticism to which presidents are subject.

What I was referring to was Trump's temperament and personality. Thin skinned, vindictive & cruel on a very personal basis, unable to manage a team, uninterested in detail, unwilling to learn and dismissive of facts and context, flummoxed by nuance, lack of respect for people, lack of respect for process and other viewpoints (this could be a positive, especially for a "change agent," but not at the extremes that Trump represents, imho), horrible judgment about people as it relates to selecting staff/support which comes from his dismissive approach to other people generally, volatile & impulsive, a "cheater's view of the world" (hard to put into a few words, but I'm thinking about his casual approach to ethics in business, lack of trustworthiness and that sort of thing) etc etc.

Every candidate has some "holes" in their makeup; there is no perfect candidate. But I do not believe that there has ever been a candidate (certainly not in my adult lifetime) so totally devoid of positives and so chock full of negatives in his/her basic personality as it relates to what one might want to see in a president.

That's cool. The only reason I even typed any of that was because you asked me to.

[Humboldt]

I posted this on the main DBT thread about them on MSNBC and the guy calling Hillary a whore. Coincidentally a female friend of mine posted the following on Facebook this morning:

"Hillary is no more incompetent, a liar or a war hawk than your average politician as proven by many objective agency. So I can only conclude that the "evil Hillary" narrative is essentially the political equivalent of the double standard at play in regards to sexuality, i.e., "men who have lots of sex are studs and women who do are whores". Patriarchy is alive and well in America."

IDK. I think we all ought to at least ponder whether some or much of the hatred thrown at her is because she is a woman.

[Zip City]

IDK. I think we all ought to at least ponder whether some or much of the hatred thrown at her is because she is a woman.

I think there are some people who hate her (or don't giver he an objectively fair shot) because she's a woman. On the other hand, It's unfair to categorize ANY criticism of her as sexist or unfair

[Humboldt]

Agreed. My girlfriend has been educating me lately on how there is still a subtle inequality in many circumstances and how women have to deal with that. It's probably something that men can never really understand. I just make it point to try to be more aware right now. I grew up very country in a right/wrong kind of way. Many moons later life has taught me that there are many views. The fact that there is subtle misogyny still in play hadn't dawned on me.

[beantownbubba]

I posted this on the main DBT thread about them on MSNBC and the guy calling Hillary a whore. Coincidentally a female friend of mine posted the following on Facebook this morning:

"Hillary is no more incompetent, a liar or a war hawk than your average politician as proven by many objective agency. So I can only conclude that the "evil Hillary" narrative is essentially the political equivalent of the double standard at play in regards to sexuality, i.e., "men who have lots of sex are studs and women who do are whores". Patriarchy is alive and well in America."

IDK. I think we all ought to at least ponder whether some or much of the hatred thrown at her is because she is a woman.

I disagree only to the extent that I don't see what's to ponder. It seems pretty clear to me that Hillary Clinton has been a lifelong target for/victim of sexism/misogyny at a level rarely seen in public life (because so few reach anywhere near her heights). I just don't see how this can even be argued. Which is not the same as saying that all her critics are sexist or that all complaints about her are false. All of those things can be true.

I think there are some people who hate her (or don't giver he an objectively fair shot) because she's a woman. On the other hand, It's unfair to categorize ANY criticism of her as sexist or unfair

I pondered this for a while, and my conclusion is that you meant "all," not "ANY". Is that right?

The fact that there is subtle misogyny still in play hadn't dawned on me.

It's not that subtle, imho. I read an article the other day by a divorced woman describing/complaining about the "latent" discrimination divorced and married women are subject to on a regular basis as a matter of policy and practice in government offices and private businesses (especially big bureaucratic ones with lots of rules). My only comment was that there is nothing "latent" about it. It's obvious and in your face.

Discrimination, misogyny, sexism, so much of it is still right out there even in the presumably highly evolved 21st century. Sure there are subtleties too but so much is just staring us right in our ugly mugs if we'd just look in the mirror and look around. One example that I think all men will recognize right away: Ask any woman of well above average intelligence and accomplishment and anywhere to the north of average looks about the ways in which they are regularly belittled and not taken seriously. That line about "my eyes are up here" is a cliche because it is a reality. Look around you every day. The number of men who don't look women in the eye and do look at nothing but their cleavage is astonishing once you start looking for it (not the cleavage wise guy!). Any woman you know can tell you dozens of stories about the regular indignities of everyday life that women experience, never mind the big career blocking or reputation ruining stuff. It's the kind of stuff that most women can't take on every time it happens because there would be no time for anything else. Plus of course they'd be labeled bitchy, whiny and unable to take a joke.

[Zip City]

I think there are some people who hate her (or don't giver he an objectively fair shot) because she's a woman. On the other hand, It's unfair to categorize ANY criticism of her as sexist or unfair

I pondered this for a while, and my conclusion is that you meant "all," not "ANY". Is that right?

Both? There is a small subset of Clinton supporters who will translate any criticism of her into an anti-women stance.

[beantownbubba]

I think there are some people who hate her (or don't giver he an objectively fair shot) because she's a woman. On the other hand, It's unfair to categorize ANY criticism of her as sexist or unfair

I pondered this for a while, and my conclusion is that you meant "all," not "ANY". Is that right?

Both? There is a small subset of Clinton supporters who will translate any criticism of her into an anti-women stance.

Yes. I eventually got it. Just one of those "it doesn't sound the same on the screen as when you say it" moments.

[Humboldt]

I live in San Diego. Things appear pretty equal around here. To a man. My girlfriend is educating me.

[PonyGirl]

I live in San Diego. Things appear pretty equal around here. To a man. My girlfriend is educating me.

Well San Diego certainly sounds like a magical place, completely devoid of sexual assault, domestic violence, cat calls, leering, groping (at shows or elsewhere), sexual intimidation and harassment, degradation, objectification, references to women as "pussy" or other equally vulgar, dehumanizing names that don't really have a male counterpart, condescension...

[dogstar]

what in the fuck's name is going on w/ the Right? why don't they just put on white hoods and be done w/ it.

"Slaves that worked [at the White House] were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government." - Bill O'Reilly

One thing that's happened in the UK since the Brexit vote is that there have been a lot more 'race hate' incidents. It seems here that the fact that the winning campaign revolved around immigration and nasty foreigners has been taken as permission by some people to behave badly. I guess Trumps talk about building walls and banning Muslims has been taken as permission to behave in a similar way by some Americans.

[Zip City]

Here's what I wrote on Face ion this morning

These Bernie supporters at the convention have lost the forest for the trees. If they truly supported Sanders, they would happily vote for Clinton as he has asked. But they don't support Sanders the man, they worship Sanders-the-idea, and now they're booing the POTUS (and will probably boo Clinton tonight). It's gone from admirable faithfulness to their candidate to detached frothing of the mouth.

[beantownbubba]

I live in San Diego. Things appear pretty equal around here. To a man. My girlfriend is educating me.

Well San Diego certainly sounds like a magical place, completely devoid of sexual assault, domestic violence, cat calls, leering, groping (at shows or elsewhere), sexual intimidation and harassment, degradation, objectification, references to women as "pussy" or other equally vulgar, dehumanizing names that don't really have a male counterpart, condescension...

Don't forget the weather's always perfect, too.

[John A Arkansawyer]

If what little I saw of the Democratic Convention tonight is typical of the week, then I think Trump wins this round on points.

Did you still feel that Trump won on points (10-9, as their were no knockdowns or point deductions) by the end of the night?

The Democrats got their shit together after a very rough start, and Trumputin (Rasputin's last known living descendent) is having some difficulties of his own just now. I think that first day came out about even.