The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:54 am

I'm at work, guys, but I'm not defending Trump here. I've said they're both disqualified just for different reasons. Also agree with your comment malchior re: likeability and her tone making that situation worse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:23 am

Smutly wrote:I've said they're both disqualified just for different reasons.

I don't think you're as far apart as you think from many of us on this issue. However, the majority of us here are seemingly tilting to Hillary; you're tilting to Trump (seemingly) because he's never been in public office - when on paper we all agree that neither choice is great. No one is saying you're voting for Trump, nor do we think (if I could be so bold as to speak for others) you endorse him in any capacity. We're just trying to understand the tilt as the line you've drawn seems rather arbitrary.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:54 am

Yeah, I don't like either of them. Like Smutly, I'm in all likelihood voting for Johnson.

My issue comes in just comparing the two major party candidates. I find them both distasteful. If I had to pick one to lead the country for the next four years, though, I'd go with Hillary in a heartbeat. That's not because I agree with her policies or because I find her in any way trustworthy - that's actually irrelevant. It's because Trump is supremely unqualified to lead a world power due to his temperment. I'd feel more comfortable with a bowl of potato salad that's been sitting out in the sun for a couple of hours as the president than Donald Trump.

Hillary as president makes me sigh and think, "More of the same."

Trump as president makes me scared.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:04 am

YellowKing wrote:Not to mention how cozy he seemingly is with Russia. Jesus. It boggles my mind the number of double standards that are being applied.

Then look at statements like this:

Having successfully obtained President Obama's birth certificate when others could not, Mr. Trump believes that President Obama was born in the United States," said Jason Miller, Trump's senior communications adviser.
What??? I swear the PR coming out of his campaign sounds like something coming out of North Korea. Who actually believes this stuff? "When others could not?" What the hell does that mean?

And in his latest interview, he's done the exact opposite of what his team is doing and is now saying he can't say whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii.

He really is not a team player, is he?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:09 am

ImLawBoy wrote: I'd feel more comfortable with a bowl of potato salad that's been sitting out in the sun for a couple of hours as the president than Donald Trump.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:16 am

ImLawBoy wrote: Hillary as president makes me sigh and think, "More of the same."

I see this all the time but I guess I don't get what is so bad about "more of the same". Yes, the obstructionism and partisan politics of the last eight (well, really 24) years has sucked, but all in all it seems to me that things are a lot better now than they were eight years ago. The economy is much better, unemployment is under 5%, wages have increased, there has been a great deal of social progress, millions more people have healthcare, etc. etc. Yes, there are still serious issues here and worldwide, but all in all I would call the last eight years significant progress.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:24 am

ImLawBoy wrote: If I had to pick one to lead the country for the next four years, though, I'd go with Hillary in a heartbeat.

This.

Hillary as president makes me sigh and think, "More of the same."

Only I differ in that I don't think MotS. I think of her as slightly worse than the same on a curve that isn't pretty at a time when slightly worse is bringing ever closer to a tipping point. Then only reason I'd go with her is because I think Trump will push us past the tipping point while many will be gleeful when they do it.

For reference, I think of Obama as MotS, which sadly made him perhaps the best president in my voting lifetime.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 11:11 am

Smutly wrote:
gilraen wrote:
Smutly wrote:I'm challenging your basis of his racism and xenophobia. I'm pointing out that others don't buy into your definition of those things
Do we also have to provide you with a definition of why we think the sky is blue? Or can we just hand you a dictionary?
I've found this board much more tolerable by adding people who make these kinds of comments to my ignore list. It's also a little satisfying seeing those people respond immediately to my posts knowing that I won't be reading their snarky comments.

I make it a point not to hide from people I don't like or their comments. If their comments upset me, that's on me. Running away might make me feel better, but it means I'm just stagnating. I'm not actively pursuing personal growth at the moment, but I am not actively hindering it either.

There isn't anyone on this board that I would classify as worthless to listen to, and that includes you and Rip. This board is not the internet in general. You continually characterize this forum in ways that are either unfair or simply not true.

In any case, enjoy this place of civility Most of the time.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 11:18 am

ImLawBoy wrote:Yeah, I don't like either of them. Like Smutly, I'm in all likelihood voting for Johnson.

What's so disappointing is that even Johnson is completely unsuited for the presidency. You have to pick between 2 rotting corpses (I don't actually agree that Hillary is as bad as public perception says, but whatever) and the village idiot (ok, that might be unfair. Maybe village wilfully ignorant?).

Good luck USofA. You're gonna need it.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:10 pm

As someone that works for a multinational behemoth, and knows more about corporate malfeasance than most of us ever will, I fail to see how ILB can read section 2 of the Lib platform and see anything other than domes cities and megacorps in that future.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:22 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:As someone that works for a multinational behemoth, and knows more about corporate malfeasance than most of us ever will, I fail to see how ILB can read section 2 of the Lib platform and see anything other than domes cities and megacorps in that future.

Good point. As you know, a vote for a candidate always means full support of all of that candidate's positions, that candidate's party's positions, and the hyperbolic conclusions that the opponents of that candidate reach from reading that candidate's party's platform.

Besides, I work for AT&T, so I know very little about corporate malfeasance.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:23 pm

geezer wrote:
Smutly wrote:I'm challenging your basis of his racism and xenophobia. I'm pointing out that others don't buy into your definition of those things (of course, pretty much everyone on this forum would agree with you). I'm saying that assuming everyone has the same definition as you would be a terrible mistake by the Democratic campaign. If you don't want to lose potential votes for HRC, then you might consider a different strategy.

I get it. You guys hate Trump as much as I hate Hillary. I'm just trying to point out something that I don't think you guys see. I'm not asking you to change how you think or feel because I don't think that is possible. Just food for thought.

Help me, Gary Johnson, you're my only hope.
The fact that you don't hate Trump as much as you hate Hillary is weird. He's everything people throw at Hillary, and then some. He lies more, withholds more personal information (tax and medical records), has foreign business ties that indicate massive conflicts of interest, and his foundation appears to be far more slimy than the Clintons (albeit massively less successful). Top it all off with the fact that he's embraced the alt-right and... It's really sort of absurd, especially for a Johnson voter.

This is my internal struggle with quite a few folks I know. I get not liking Hillary, but saying it's a choice between equal evils is logically inconsistent so far for everyone that has shared this line of thinking with me (for the reasons you post above and more). These people are not native Trump supporters and a few months ago would admit how terrible of a candidate Trump is... but I am pretty sure gobs of these people are now prepared to pull the lever for Drumpf to defeat evil Hillary. If integrity is the measuring stick they both clearly take some big hits, but Trump is sooo much more repugnant.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:25 pm

Smoove_B wrote:when on paper we all agree that neither choice is great.

A lot of us are claiming that, but our own internal poll shows otherwise.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:28 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:As someone that works for a multinational behemoth, and knows more about corporate malfeasance than most of us ever will, I fail to see how ILB can read section 2 of the Lib platform and see anything other than domes cities and megacorps in that future.
Good point. As you know, a vote for a candidate always means full support of all of that candidate's positions, that candidate's party's positions, and the hyperbolic conclusions that the opponents of that candidate reach from reading that candidate's party's platform.

Besides, I work for AT&T, so I know very little about corporate malfeasance.

Keep in mind this logic works for voting for ANY candidate (inc. Hillary and Trump).

I mean sure, I don't agree with any major policy position that Trump has announced and some parts of his platform are pure anathema to conservative/Republican values, has no integrity, he might destroy international relations and lead to a new race war... but dat Supreme Court man....

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:30 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:As someone that works for a multinational behemoth, and knows more about corporate malfeasance than most of us ever will, I fail to see how ILB can read section 2 of the Lib platform and see anything other than domes cities and megacorps in that future.
Good point. As you know, a vote for a candidate always means full support of all of that candidate's positions, that candidate's party's positions, and the hyperbolic conclusions that the opponents of that candidate reach from reading that candidate's party's platform.

Besides, I work for AT&T, so I know very little about corporate malfeasance.

Hyperbole aside, the economic policies of a candidate are rather critical to what you can expect from an elected leader. It's not some pie in the sky, chicken in every pot hyperbole. It's attempts at massive deregulation that would impact consumer and environmental protections even if only some of it gets implemented, and reads on paper even worse than the GOP platform.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:31 pm

Alefroth wrote:
Smoove_B wrote:when on paper we all agree that neither choice is great.
A lot of us are claiming that, but our own internal poll shows otherwise.

Very true. Though we don't know if those voting are active discussion participants. I'm was commenting on those that have been engaging in discussion.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:31 pm

Enough wrote:
ImLawBoy wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:As someone that works for a multinational behemoth, and knows more about corporate malfeasance than most of us ever will, I fail to see how ILB can read section 2 of the Lib platform and see anything other than domes cities and megacorps in that future.
Good point. As you know, a vote for a candidate always means full support of all of that candidate's positions, that candidate's party's positions, and the hyperbolic conclusions that the opponents of that candidate reach from reading that candidate's party's platform.

Besides, I work for AT&T, so I know very little about corporate malfeasance.
Keep in mind this logic works for voting for ANY candidate (inc. Hillary and Trump).

I mean sure, I don't agree with any major policy position that Trump has announced and some parts of his platform are pure anathema to conservative/Republican values, has no integrity, he might destroy international relations and lead to a new race war... but dat Supreme Court man....

I've already stated that if there were any chance my state were in play, I'd vote Hillary. If it comes to the point where Illinois is actually competitive, though, then I think we're already lost.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:34 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
ImLawBoy wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:As someone that works for a multinational behemoth, and knows more about corporate malfeasance than most of us ever will, I fail to see how ILB can read section 2 of the Lib platform and see anything other than domes cities and megacorps in that future.
Good point. As you know, a vote for a candidate always means full support of all of that candidate's positions, that candidate's party's positions, and the hyperbolic conclusions that the opponents of that candidate reach from reading that candidate's party's platform.

Besides, I work for AT&T, so I know very little about corporate malfeasance.
Hyperbole aside, the economic policies of a candidate are rather critical to what you can expect from an elected leader. It's not some pie in the sky, chicken in every pot hyperbole. It's attempts at massive deregulation that would impact consumer and environmental protections even if only some of it gets implemented, and reads on paper even worse than the GOP platform.

If I were expecting him to be an elected leader, that might come into play. I'm not expecting him to get any electoral votes, much less be elected. And he certainly won't be getting any electoral votes from my state, which will be giving them all to Hillary.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:35 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Smoove_B wrote:when on paper we all agree that neither choice is great.
A lot of us are claiming that, but our own internal poll shows otherwise.
Very true. Though we don't know if those voting are active discussion participants. I'm was commenting on those that have been engaging in discussion.

Good point. I have to say I was surprised at the results given the general sentiment toward Hillary.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:35 pm

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:46 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:
Enough wrote:
ImLawBoy wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:As someone that works for a multinational behemoth, and knows more about corporate malfeasance than most of us ever will, I fail to see how ILB can read section 2 of the Lib platform and see anything other than domes cities and megacorps in that future.
Good point. As you know, a vote for a candidate always means full support of all of that candidate's positions, that candidate's party's positions, and the hyperbolic conclusions that the opponents of that candidate reach from reading that candidate's party's platform.

Besides, I work for AT&T, so I know very little about corporate malfeasance.
Keep in mind this logic works for voting for ANY candidate (inc. Hillary and Trump).

I mean sure, I don't agree with any major policy position that Trump has announced and some parts of his platform are pure anathema to conservative/Republican values, has no integrity, he might destroy international relations and lead to a new race war... but dat Supreme Court man....
I've already stated that if there were any chance my state were in play, I'd vote Hillary. If it comes to the point where Illinois is actually competitive, though, then I think we're already lost.

And we and the next seven generations thank you greatly for that!

I do remember you saying this and for you in Illinois that makes total sense. But a lot of the folks I know going full Johnson are just sure purple Colorado for e.g. is in the bag for Hillary, so no harm no foul. May as well vote Johnson. Add this hidden cohort (as far as most polling is concerned) and those ready to secretly vote Trump (and never admit it to another soul lol) to defeat evil Hillary or for Supreme Court reasons and I think we have a real race at the moment. We need to stop pussy footing around and those of us on all sides that know how singularly unqualified to be POTUS Trump is need to constantly point that out to those that trust our opinions. IMO, this isn't an election to build up third party candidates when you have a Trump running. If we get an equally loony Democrat running I will happily vote for the sane Republican (presuming there is one heh) to save the union.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:48 pm

El Guapo wrote:

Yep. The NYT has some odd fetish for the Clintons. It was the exact same coverage when Bill was POTUS. But booga, booga, the NYT is the most liberal paper in existence!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:52 pm

The boomerang style of arguing that Trump uses amazes me. You can say anything about him and he'll accuse someone else of either doing it first, or being the only one to do it as he's innocent.

You have to admit, he's got balls to lie so often about things that are easily fact checked by anyone outside his supporters.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:55 pm

Alefroth wrote:
Smoove_B wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Smoove_B wrote:when on paper we all agree that neither choice is great.
A lot of us are claiming that, but our own internal poll shows otherwise.
Very true. Though we don't know if those voting are active discussion participants. I'm was commenting on those that have been engaging in discussion.
Good point. I have to say I was surprised at the results given the general sentiment toward Hillary.

I think there's a general idea that she's a horrible candidate but would be a good policy maker/president. That's my own personsl disconnect, at least.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:56 pm

Enough wrote:I do remember you saying this and for you in Illinois that makes total sense. But a lot of the folks I know going full Johnson are just sure purple Colorado for e.g. is in the bag for Hillary, so no harm no foul. May as well vote Johnson. Add this hidden cohort (as far as most polling is concerned) and those ready to secretly vote Trump (and never admit it to another soul lol) to defeat evil Hillary or for Supreme Court reasons and I think we have a real race at the moment. We need to stop pussy footing around and those of us on all sides that know how singularly unqualified to be POTUS Trump is need to constantly point that out to those that trust our opinions. IMO, this isn't an election to build up third party candidates when you have a Trump running. If we get an equally loony Democrat running I will happily vote for the sane Republican (presuming there is one heh) to save the union.

To be clear:

ImLawBoy wrote:I'd feel more comfortable with a bowl of potato salad that's been sitting out in the sun for a couple of hours as the president than Donald Trump.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:00 pm

hepcat wrote:The boomerang style of arguing that Trump uses amazes me. You can say anything about him and he'll accuse someone else of either doing it first, or being the only one to do it as he's innocent.

You have to admit, he's got balls to lie so often about things that are easily fact checked by anyone outside his supporters.

He does it because the media enables it. They're simple tricks, but work so well. Someone accuses you of something, you accuse them back, no matter how ridiculous, because then the story is "Today Clinton and Trump accused either other of birthirism", so the media coverage largely evens out. And what can Clinton do about it? Reiterating, "no seriously, he is, look at the evidence" doesn't help, because that's not newsworthy, because what's newsworthy is the accusation (which she had already made), not the evidence.

Or, when you are getting pressured to do something, you kind of sort of do it, enough to be in the ballpark to get the media coverage for what the media expects you to do, but without doing it. Like his stunt on the Oz show, which has received coverage under "Trump releases medical records" when he didn't fucking release any medical records.

His birthirism "reversal" this morning is a true master class. He called a 'press conference' at his new hotel, for the ostensible purpose of addressing the birthirism (and his expected reversal). But instead of going on at the specified time, he brings on a few crazy retired generals to testify about how great he is, which the media covers, since they were all there for the birthirism reversal - and one of the generals is a prominent birther! Then he goes on, briefly 'acknowledges' that Obama was born in the U.S., and accuses Hillary of starting the birthirism movement!

Good fucking lord. And you see some prominent coverage given to Trump's statement that Obama was born in the U.S. period, without necessarily mentioning his past insane history on the issue or his crazy accusation of Clinton.

I am at least seeing some coverage of the insanity of this stunt, at least.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:06 pm

The press is pissed they were trolled with Trumps birther event this morning.

In a show of joint defiance, the major television networks collectively voted to pull a camera and erase video of Donald Trump giving a tour of his hotel, a protest of the campaign preventing any editorial presence on the tour.

And then, when Trump was supposed to take the press on a tour of his new hotel, the editorial producer for the network pool was physically detained.

"As the designated pool producer; attempted to go on pooled tour, as is customary. Was physically restrained from accompanying the camera," tweeted ABC producer Candace Smith.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:18 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:Besides, I work for AT&T, so I know very little about corporate malfeasance.

Of course, I meant keeping an eye on your vendors and competitors.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:28 pm

Hmm, so is Trump going to donate the $5 million to charity he promised back in 2012 if given satisfactory evidence of Obama's birth status?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:32 pm

No, he never said that. HILLARY said that!

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:45 pm

And here we go, this should really help ease the tensions with the police and various communities. The National Fraternal Order of Police has strongly endorsed Trump for POTUS today. They will never get one penny from me again until they acknowledge this was a mistake and apologize.

And isn't Trump anti-union?

Edit: they declined to endorse in 2012. Why not refuse to endorse this cycle?

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:54 pm

Trump's entire vocabulary is on the level of a 4th grader, so why should it surprise anyone when he relies on the legal maxim of "flexilis sum es gluten". *

*

Spoiler:

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:54 pm

Enough wrote:And here we go, this should really help ease the tensions with the police and various communities. The National Fraternal Order of Police has strongly endorsed Trump for POTUS today. They will never get one penny from me again until they acknowledge this was a mistake and apologize.

And isn't Trump anti-union?

Edit: they declined to endorse in 2012. Why not refuse to endorse this cycle?

That's one way to go if you're trying to repair your image with the African American community in the United States.

...it's the wrong way, but it's definitely a way.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:03 pm

Things really started to get exciting as soon as Trump wrapped up his weak excuse for press conference, and tried to take the press (CAMERAS ONLY) on a tour of his recently opened hotel.

As the press and producers and anyone with the ability to actually question Trump were locked in the ballroom, his stage collapsed.

Wow

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:09 pm

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:49 pm

Meanwhile, over on Breitbart...

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:54 pm

hepcat wrote:No, he never said that. HILLARY said that!

And she NEVER DONATED IT. Hillary is a LIAR and CANNOT BE TRUSTED!

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:55 pm

I give the fuck up. Really?

Re: Breitbart coverage

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:58 pm

They're totally not racist! The gorilla is a universally recognized symbol for grifting. Have you never heard the expression, "You gorillaed me, you bastard!"

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:06 pm

I'm already seeing people saying it is just the Harambe meme. Has nothing to do with the fact that the story was covering the place of Obama's birth. Nope. Just RIP Harambe. Get it. Hahahahaha.