Konspiracy Korner: Hillary vs The Donald
:: crowd goes wild ::

.

Hillary vs Trump

You have got to admit, this is a PAY-PER-VIEW grade boxing match.  Both of these candidates are considered, by the other side, to be unthinkably extreme caricatures of the parties they represent.  This isn’t Edgar Martinez batting against Jamie Moyer; it’s Jose Canseco batting against Armando Benitez.  It’s going to be a whale of an entertaining year.

I’m not saying I’d vote Trump.  I got bored with American politics about fifteen years ago.

The thing is, you already “get” Hillary.  You don’t “get” Donald Trump. It’s not about talking you into voting for him; I couldn’t care less whether you did or didn’t.

It’s about explaining why Trump is not as much of a joke as CNN would like us to think he is.  Bet you a Buffalo nickel you hadn’t thought of even 1 the 3 reasons we give below.  As you know, we live to serve.

.

KEEPIN' IT FRESH

Like we said:  we’re mostly getting a comments thread open.  Hillary backers please DO make the case for her.  Dr. D is especially interested in what would make her a good President aside from the things she has in common with other Democratic candidates. 

I’m bored by arguments that she’s pro-choice, that she wants to use carrots rather than sticks with foreign dictators, that she’ll spend big money on global warming.  Wikipedia will argue that Bill Clinton was a top-10 President on the basis that he holds the values every other liberal holds.  Let’s talk about whether a candidate is good at her job.

I’m also bored to hear arguments for Trump on the basis that it’s important to stop partial-birth abortion, that he’s hawkish on foreign policy or that he’s in favor of unfettering Corporate America.

.

One thing about SSI:  you get full disclosure on my politics.  I come from a Christian point of view.  We promised you three things about The Donald that appeals to to “ideological conservatives.” These things cut through the fact that Trump is the most secular candidate among Republicans – and even though his reversal from Democrat to Republican may be staged for all I know.

Trump is WINNING.  Nobody thought it possible.  We’ll tell you why he is winning.  That’s all.  You don't have to like it :- )

.

MY LEAST FAVE THING ABOUT TRUMP

He ain't Presidential.  That charge sticks.  The Constitution even says.  You should be 35 years of age, born in America, and have no combover.

.

NUMBER ONE REASON HE'S WINNING ANYWAY

This guy is solid steel.  We are talking Clint Eastwood steel, the kind of guy who will step up in front of 10 million Americans on TV and ad-lib for a half hour on unpopular positions.  Trump has MUCH more steel than ANY candidate on either side.  Contrast Hillary’s defensiveness when she’s criticized even mildly.  (Bill Clinton was able to put on snake eyes when people came at him; we’re not just painting with a broad brush.)

Case in point:  the CNN primary debate was paneled by three moderators who were simply breathtaking in their contempt for all of the debaters.  One Republican after another whined about it; I think it was Rubio who caused a sensation by rebuking them from the pulpit in real time.

But Trump was asked about it, live on TV, and he nodded approvingly.  “I think it was good,” he said, and he meant it.  The fiery, unfair turf gave him a chance to set himself apart.  Which is exactly what he did.

This is a guy who has power-negotiated hundreds of big business deals, with people trying to kill him, and he cannot be intimidated.  By the New York Times or anybody. 

I’m not saying that’s good.  I’m saying it’s what Christians like.  They feel persecuted by the media, and Trump is a guy who can embarrass the media.  No apologies.  Ever. 

....

And he’ll carry this steel into the World War III front with jihadists.

Dennis Miller had a joke:  "Could we get Obama to speak as harshly of ISIS as he does of the Tea Party and of Boston Police?"  Think about it.  He genuinely does want tolerance for ISIS.  He genuinely wants zero tolerance for people in his own country who disagree with him effectively.

Libertarians would like to see this exactly reversed.  Trump is the photo-negative of Obama and Clinton on ISIS and immigration, and that's what this election will probably be about.

.

POINT TWO

Trump's sound bites sound outrageous because of the reporting bias against them – Joe Biden would be caricatured if the media didn’t vote 95% left – and because every other candidate cares whether they are mocked.  Trump simply doesn’t care.

And the plus side is, he's UNSCRIPTED.  He's sincere, in that sense.  Is insincerity from politicians --- > a minor complaint we have, or a major one?

Americans will forgive a lot of dumb things if they're real.

.

POINT THREE

We are waayyyy past the point, in America, of arguing about gay marriage.  America has already DECIDED that sexual taboos serve no purpose.  There is absolutely no point in voting for somebody to charge up that hill.  It’s irrelevant now.

The critical issue over the next 10 years is whether foreigners are going to outvote Americans and “turn the U.S. into a third world hellhole.”  I don’t say this in a racist way; I’ve been on mercy missions to Mexico, and because I meant it.  I work, as we speak, for Third World compassion. 

The political battle over immigration is, in reality, a battle over a mass of new liberal voters.  Here is an Ann Coulter piece that describes the problem in much more blunt terms than I use.  http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-11-11.html

.

POINT FOUR

Trump does NOT take himself too seriously.  Have you seen his parody of himself on Jimmy Kimmel?  Have you SEEN that?  :- )

Honestly now:  is Hillary Clinton going to parody herself on a comedy show?  Is she going to sit there while some comedienne in a mirror, with a blonde wig, satires her mannerisms and positions?  And one-up the criticism of herself in a volleyball game that lampoons her?  She'd go on the show, certainly.  Rule would be:  nothing that lands a real blow against her.

As Coulter put it, when Trump brags and boasts, it’s funny.  And he’s in on the joke.   Nobody feels bad about themselves after Trump brags.  Think about that for a minute, however you vote.

.

DR's R/X 

I’m not saying I’d vote Trump.  I wouldn't.  If I voted at all, I have an inkling for Ben Carson.  I like the intelligence, the soft-spokenness, the hesitancy to react too quickly, the niceness.  Of course his social positions are very similar to mine.

But some people see the U.S. as sliding into Hell in a handbasket.  Many of those people think Donald Trump has the stones to go to war to save his country.

.

EQUAL TIME Dept.

My favorite thing about Hillary:  Judi Dench’s line from GoldenEye, when an American general scoffed at having a woman in the War Room.  Perhaps she doesn’t have the stones to go to war.  But that also means she doesn’t have to think with them.

Best exec I ever worked for, was a woman a lot like Hillary.

Enjoy,

Dr D

Blog: 

Comments

1

...on the many references here to points on which we disagree.

So, to keep this on topic:

--a recent study said that Trump polls twice as high among Republicans with no college education as he does with those who do.  Make of that what you will.

--it would be hard to create a Presidential candidate who has more relevant experience than Hillary (first lady/health care reform advocate...Senator...Secretary of State).  You can say she did a horrible job at any or all of these...or that you simply dislike her.  But her background is the exact opposite of Trump's (no governmental job).  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?  Does one or the other promise a better job as President?

--The media dismissiveness of Trump is not partisan.  See Megyn Kelly, the rest of Fox News, and a considerable percentage of the conservative blogosphere.

--I think you are swinging and missing on your 'steel' comment.  Hillary has probably endured more heat from the media and big parts of the public than any other living politician.  You're free to say she deserved it...but it has been oppressive, and she's still standing.  

Cheers!

3

that part of my response was tongue in cheek.

I think this topic is IMMENSELY important and worthy.  I just fear it devolving into issues like abortion and home schooling...which sometimes happens.  :)

6
Taro's picture

Personally am voting for Trump unless something drastically changes. I don't understand why political experience is more important than business experience. America is basically the biggest business in the world. It should be a pre-requisite for any president to be a highly accomplished businessman (or woman).

7

I think most people would agree that business and government are not the same thing. However, personal leadership qualities are probably an asset in either case.

A couple considerations for Trump (who I like/trust more than all but one other GOP candidate):

--as would be the case with any non-governmental person coming into a Presidency, he has no governmental infrastructure behind him. Who does he place in his cabinet?  Who are his advisors on foreign or domestic policy?   Conpare him to GWB, who was albe to recruit all of his main lieutenants from his father's administration. 

--the common wisdom is that a Repubican president with a Republican Congress can get things done that 'everyone' wants.  But much of the GOP establishment despises him.  Will the 'family values' Republicans be able to support him, given his personal history?  Will the fundamentalist Christian representatives be able to support him...and themselves get reelected?  Some of his positions sound distinctly non-conservative--will that matter?  I don't know the answer to questions like this, but I think they deserve to be asked.

--despite Doc's description of Trump's 'steel'...how will he react when people say 'no' to him--for the first time in his life?

Cheers!

8

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has been calling his shots with regard to Trump since summer. Here are two examples from August:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/127715904536/trump-persuasion-alert-the-bus...

Since I read those posts (and there is a series of them on his blog), my perception of Trump has changed. I honestly thought he was just a blow hard from New York born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But I've seen him employ these 'linguistic kill shots' over and over. When Carly started to get traction, he mentioned her face. Everyone decried it as sexist but I guarantee that every person that heard him say it thinks 'botox' every time they see her on TV. She was done. Bush is low energy. Done. He hasn't landed a kill shot on Rubio yet but he's on the back burner until Carson goes down, which is happening now. 

As far as the commentary about him polling better with Republicans with no college education - let's just say that Trump is a very savvy business man and he knows his market. The market in question, now, is the GOP primary voting pool. A majority of Republican primary delegates will be decided by who? Evangelicals, which he's just hoping to split, and non-college educated voters.  

I don't know if I can vote for the guy but in general, I like executives that I feel are playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers. I get that feeling with Trump. Can he pivot and appeal to the much more diverse voting pool in the general election? Three months ago I would have said no. Today? Heck if I know. 

9

Fascinating observation.  

And you wonder how much this is carried over from business -- that he pushes through an initial resentment, but the profits linger.  Like his saying "YOU'RE FIRED!" on the apprentice I always hated, but ... certain things about that RESONATE.

10

Like EVERYone else, my initial perception of Trump was that of 'blowhard.'  But there's a real chance that he's playing chess while other people are playing checkers - even if a bit inadvertently.

Love it, when we learn that there are paradigms out there we hadn't yet captured.  Trump's political approach is brand-new and until a few months ago, we all considered it out of the question.  It ain't out of the question, as things turn out.

12

Man, I'm an educator!  And I graduated from the University of Oregon!!  In the 70's, even!!! (OK, '79)  But I may well be the only U of O graduate educator, in history, who is a firm Republican.

That said, Trump has a secret (I can't abide the man as a presidential candidate, BTW).  The secret is that he's whatever people want to see in him, because he's an empty space, politically.  In 2008 Obama transcended politics, he became a savior (for the folks who endorsed him). He had carefully groomed a complete lack of political baggage. It was deliberate and telling.  He was a political will-'o-the-wisp, whatever you wanted him to be.

Ditto Trump.  I am convinced that there is no there there.  Well, unless bombastic is there.  He's a bizarrely coiffed will-'o-the-wisp, with no political past except what he wants to claim exists ("I know Putin"). 

Obama had no real political past because he made every effort to leave no trace of one that was of substance.  He was there, but not.

And it worked.  But, no president since Harding was less prepared for that nut-cruncher job.  I said, the day he was elected, that he was an amatuer.  I was way ahead of author Edward Klein.  And I was right.  I'm not critiquing his performance in the position, mind you.  I'm not a fan, but that is not my intent here.  And I'm not really talking about his experience, but his lack of willingness/desire to experience politics in a way that would groom him for this particular job.  He avoided the political school yard, had no hard scraps, because he wanted none of it.  it would be too dirty, and it left a trail.

Trump has no political past because his politics were limited to one topic:  The buying and selling of properties.  Oh, developing them, too.

His politics were whatever was good for Trump Industries. 

Would Bill Gates make a good president?  Phil Knight?  Howard Lincoln?  You get my drift.

Hey, I have no problem with him make oodles of cash, it's a free society.  I don't begrudge Robinson Cano his either.   And I don't believe Trump (or the other guys above) should be under any particularly severe and overly oneous compulsion (other than his own "Gospel of Wealth," thank you Andrew Carnegie) to subsidize folks who like too much the comforts of government coddling and who produce next to nothing.

It isn't his wealth that won't do, it's the man. 

Doc, I will disagree:  His sincerity is there, but it tells you nothing about the man, or the candidate.  Well, nothing positive, really.  He's sincere about The Donald.  Nothing else.  In his business world, sincerity is enforced with a contract.  His type of business deals work because he puts cash on the barrelhead.  You don't have to like him or trust him or every deal with him again.  You get a contract and lawyers that do that for you. Ditto his dealiing with others.

But political deals work, at their heart, because you've invested time and sweat into relationships.  You have to go to the same folks again to solve the next problem.  You can't fake relationships very long, and there is no binding contract.

There is only one candidate for the presidenty who continues to claim that he'll just round up 11 million folks and run them across the border, and offers no plan, nothing concrete, nothing but will-'o-the-wisp nostrums.  He doesn't admit to the considerable 4th and 5th amendment issues that apply, btw.  He must know they exist.  But nuance isn't bombastic.

I digress:  The American Presidency is likely the most complicated job on the planet. Give me the nuanced visionaries with the skill to work with congress, both sides, to move forward.  Governors usually have the better chance at having that skill set.  But unless you're a Cristie or O'Malley man, we're fresh out of them right now. Trump as president will be bombastically embarrassing (both politically and nationally) and will get destroyed by the filibuster.  And he won't have the political skills to overcome it. 

Hillary Clinton would inherit the job from a divisive individual (personally and professionally) and make it worse.  Like Obama (and I think Trump, too) she really doesn't like people.  She likes "her" people.  Ditto Trump and Obama.

Trump's rant in Iowa ("How stupid are the people of Iowa?") is telling, I think.  He thinks the rest of us are stupid (and ugly and too female and liars and...).  I believe that Obama and Hillary share this conceit.  Ultimately, I don't think they like the rest of us, regardless, really, of political affiliation.

A year ago I said that I wasn't sure he would make the best president but I was sure that Marco Rubio was the best candidate (vs. Hillary).  I stand by that today, except I'm pretty sure that he will make a darn fine president, as well.  In places like Pennsylvania and Ohio, Hillary will simply be a voice of the status quo (in the White House, politically).  Rubio will be a moderate voice of breaking the deadlock and moving forward, solving big problems  That will hunt!  And he brings Florida with him.  He's a terrific candidate and will play well with independents, a must

I'm a big fan of Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico, and a year ago I thought she would be on any GOP nominee's short list of VP partners.  She still will be. In  double-checking the spelling on her first name justnow, I see that whe was chosen as the Chair of the Republican Governors Association just this afternoon. 

Rubio/Martinez is a hellacious ticket.  Ditto Rubio/Christie.  Rubio/Kasich should be, as it might deliver Ohio, but Kasich is so flat that I'm not sure he's not a handicap.....and I like governors.

But Trump?  I'm so not in that I'm WAY out.

Too long, I know.  Sorry.

Keith

13

This charge has traction.

Also your point about --- > Trump's sincerity extending as far as the language in the binding contract?  That's telling.  If I were Hillary I would have that idea front-and-center.

Your usual awesome post.  And you should rightfully have the lead in this comments thread.

14
From Ask Bill:
While we're on Presidents: Dennis Miller had a joke, "If only we could get Obama to speak as harshly of ISIS as he does of the Tea Party and of Boston police." Should Americans be alarmed about this? Do you think this "wake up to the War on Terror" / illegal immigration factor will mark a pivot point in American history, or are the parties' differences on it overstated? 
Asked by: jemanji
Answered: 11/19/2015
Talk about broad questions. .. .that's pretty broad. While I have supported President Obama generally, have voted for him twice and have generally regarded him as a good president, I very much dislike his harsh rhetoric and his sarcastic comments about his political opponents, and I would have to agree-literally, not jokingly--that he speaks much more harshly about Republicans than he does about ISIS. He also looks stupid referring to them as a "ISIL". 
15

...but I think it's more helpful to stick to Trump/Hillary.  

And I really appreicate Moe's characterization of 'empty space'. Spot on.

Obama's movement was based on this.  Can Trump pull off the same thing?  i don't know why not.

Except that the Democratic establshment lined up behind Obama.  Don't know if the same can/will happen for the GOP and Trump.  

16

It's axiomatic that the American people will be voting on Hillary's presidency as a continuation of Obama's.  To nuanced commentators that might be overstating it - but to Soccer Mom it won't be.  You like Obama and the Clintons or you don't.

.....

If Hillary Clinton is more willing to condemn ISIS as bloody murderers than Obama is, I'd be pleased to know that.  From my seat in the end zone it hasn't looked that way, but I don't know much about her other than the sound bites.  I stand to be corrected.

If Hillary is less willing than Obama to condemn fellow Americans who simply *disagree* with her, I'd be pleased to know that too.  For me that has *always* been her worst failing - the way she talks about Americans who don't think like she does.

........

It would be part of the designated purpose of this thread to --- > explain the important differences between Obama and Hillary.  So, here's the perfect spot :- )

17

Barack Obama was elected twice, so of course Hillary would love to have the support of every one of his voters.  And eventually she might.  But not now.  Bernie Sanders support is real, and attracts many of Obama's supporters.

The issue that historically will most prominently divide them is their differing votes supporting the Iraq invasion.  

But in a more current sense, this might be worth a read.  http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/politics/hillary-clinton-5-differences-pre...

18

"He's a bizzarely coiffed will-'0-the-wisp" -- what a delicious line from Moe.  And possibly quite true.  On the flip side, the Adam's links provided by Griz were thought provoking.  Could this guy really have a strategy?  Could that strategy really work?  I'm not sure I'm ready to even consider it. 

What line would be equally as identifiable with Hillary?  Perhaps something like "She's a credibility challenged fait accompli"?  And, like the Donald, her strategy seems to be working too.  Which leads me to a personally disturbing thought... What if Trump and Clinton are ultimate faces from which we have to choose.  Oh. My. Goodness. Gracious.

With honest and proper respect toward any here who might feel otherwise, how can one pick the lesser of two evils when both choices are so personally and blatantly offputting?  A Hillary/Donald cage match would be one for the ages, but I'm not sure I'd be rooting for a winner.  More realistically, I'd be hoping for one of those Rocky/Apollo Creed ending scenes where they knock each other out simultaneously.  Is that just too much to ask? 

Rocky III final scene

What He's a bizarrely coiffed will-'o-the-wisp
He's a bizarrely coiffed will-'o-the-wisp
19

I would bemusedly wonder whether his "Clown King" approach is a calculated strategy, or something that he has willingly been conditioned into because it wins.  Certainly his natural personality is that he's glad to ignore your snickering as long as he gets another massive wire transfer into his account!

But either way, it's a new paradigm for his opponents to handle and the Republican rivals, at least, have no idea how to counter it.

Pretty fun to watch, a "monkey wrench" I hadn't considered before, and personally am not saying it as a Trump fan.  :- )

20

Paints in clear bold colors. Obama has a Carteresque "malaise" complaint that Hillary as his Sec. Of State will have trouble extracting herself from, and has now started to blame Americans for his failings to deal competently with Islamic extremism (which apparently doesn't exist). People instinctively respond to "Make America Great Again," and in particular my cohort of white male America. My neighbor is one of those high school graduates who is a white male who likes Trump. He doesn't talk politics much, or at all, really. But he let me know. He's a competent and hard working contractor, who "builds America." High school graduates aren't idiots. A lot of them handed a secure and successfully democratized Iraq to the current President, but they knew we couldn't just leave. We still have troops in South Korea, and until very recently Germany. 

Imagine being a Yankees fan in, say 1974, and having George Steinbrenner coming in and demanding he will make the Yankees "Great again." In a few years, it looks like a darn circus, but darned if he didn't make the Yankees great again. Sometimes, it takes a clownish blowhard, I suppose. Most of America did not expect Reagan to "Make America Great Again." I voted for Anderson, myself. But many, many voters crossed over because he projected toughness, resolve, and it contrasted with confusion and excuse-making: hostages in Iran,  a failed rescue attempt, and no clue what to do next.

I'm leaning toward Christie right now, I think he is an excellent communicator that connects. But I would give even money on Trump becoming our next President. I expect whoever emerges with the GOP Nomination will be battle tested and ready to win in a wave election. 

In Hillary's defense, I was very impressed with her dogged campaign in 2008, and I think that, deep down inside, she "gets it." And she'll have the media. But so did Carter, and there was no talk radio and Fox News back then.

21

Rick, just between you and me buddy, I count 16 assertions there, and I liked 15 of them.  I just enjoy the stuffin' out of your ideas.

Yankee$ analogy:  There you go!  Trump is the political George Steinbrenner!  :- )  HEH Heh heh HEH

Reagan's campaign -- in a completely different era -- was the analogue for Trump's now.  Absolutely no question.  Reagan looked just as clownish relative to his Deadball era, or was painted to be so.  But in the era of Lady GaGa and Kaitlyn Jenner, we've got to adjust for park effects ...

22

Good call, Rick82, I also was thinking of Reagan parallels. Like Reagan, Trump understands the bully pulpit, and like Reagan, his bark is probably worse than his bite. My recollection of Reagan is that he talked like a far right Republican but acted politically like a moderate. What Reagan had was incredibly fine-tuned political judgment. A few others in the 20th century I put into that category in a democracy are FDR, Churchill, Clinton, and probably Eisenhower (on the strength of his 5 star performance in WWII alone). I expected Trump to self-immolate from some ill-considered inflammatory remark long before now. That he has not is surprising and impressive. He is certainly fearless. Below is an excerpt from an Isaiah Berlin essay “Political Judgment” found in his book The Sense of Reality describing political judgment.

 From Berlin: “[W]hat matters is to understand a particular situation in it full uniqueness, the particular men and events and dangers, the particular hopes and fears which are actively at work in a particular place at a particular time … In the realm of political action, laws are far and few indeed: skills are everything. What makes statesmen … successful is that they do not think in general terms – that is, they do not primarily ask themselves in what respect a given situation is like or unlike other situations in the long course of human history … Their merit is that they grasp the unique combination of characteristics that constitute this particular situation – this and no other. What they are said to be able to do is to understand the character of a particular movement, of a particular individual, of a unique state of affairs, of a unique atmosphere, of some particular combination of economic, political, personal factors; and we do not readily suppose that this capacity can literally be taught.”

I think Trump may well have “it;” I don’t think Secretary Clinton has “it,” despite learning at the feet of a master.

 

23

I think that most far-left observers fear that --- > a Ronald Reagan really does thirst for a "Handmaid's Tale" type of dystopia.  They hear a bit of uncompromising disagreement and run screaming into the night at what the guy has in mind.

Like we sez, most people don't "get" Trump and surely CNN doesn't.

Sparkling post as usual Lampoon!  You're getting to be the SSI Dennis Miller of esoteric but on-point literary references :- )

24
Arne's picture

Rush Limbaugh, who's been talking about Trump a lot on his show, strikes me as reaching a very similar demographic to Trump. That is, white men and women who aren’t intellectuals and appreciate what they see as honest talk, and people who just get the job done. I'd guess Limbaugh sees Trump as a kindred spirit and so is fascinated by Trump's success thus far.

25

... care for an exchange of blogrolls? and we can get you a shoutout here...

Camille Paglia once mentioned Rush at a left-wing parrtay and the room swelled up with snickering.  She exploded.  "Is there anybody here who LISTENS to Rush Limbaugh?"  Nobody's hand went up.

I see that he has 314,000 Twitter followers.  Wonder what his daily radio audience is in 2015.

26

I'm way late to the conversation and there's too much I want to say and too little time to say it, but I had to say this--I really agree, after reading those Scott Adams blog links, this guy has Reagan's communicative genius written all over him.

I'm-a halfta call the election right now. NO FAIR!

29

From Hey Bill:

Following up on Ben's question, do you think that the regular tacking between parties is, in and of itself, a sign of democratic health, and that a prolonged period of single-party dominance would be unlikely to be a good thing?
Asked by: matt_okeefe
Answered: 11/20/2015
 I certainly think that a long period of single-party dominance would be a terrible thing.
....
And that certainly jibes with what the Founding Fathers had in mind:  a slow-moving, landlocked government.  Call it the 100-Year View.
31

And, along those lines, Hey Bill had this today:

President Trump will be the worst of all. 
Asked by: Bruce 
Answered: 11/20/2015
Trump would make Harry Truman look like the Emperor Augustus.

.

As you might know, James ranks Truman absolutely the worst President in U.S. history.  I think there's a very decent chance that Trump could be the absolute worst - and another chance he could be one of the top ten.  That's why this nominee situation is so bemusing (to me anyway).

Gotta say, when an Op-Ed author at the National Review uses "mewling" and "pathetic" in the first ten words, it doesn't leave a good impression of his ability to look at the situation coolly.

Thanks as always Keith-O :- )

32

Trump definitely uses this a huge amount of the time and at some bizarre times.  It goes to the question of whether he'd be a terrible President, too.

Personally, my guess is that he does it because he's not nearly as "booked up" as he should be.  At times he gives the impression that he's taking a little time away from his 400-500 businesses to run for President on a lark.

....

That said, other politicians are merely good at IGNORING questions they don't like and firing off with a pre-set closing statement.  Nothin' the reporters can do about it, either.  I thought The Governator was especially good at that.

.....

Given a choice between the two?  I as an ignorant voter prefer Trump shooting from the hip (including the implied statement that he's not yet booked up on the question).  Gives me a better read on him.

33

We have never elected a president who had never served:

1.  In an elected office

2.  As a general officer

3.  As a cabinet member

Trump would be it.

I afraid he might even make Jimmy Carter look like Augustus, and he's certainly the worst president of my lifetime.....and it isn't even close.

34

(Although reading for many years)

I'm less concerned with a prolonged period of single-party dominance than I am with the winner-takes-all mentality of a two-party system. We need to get these guys more focused on making sound policy than battling for the Iron Throne.

35

When I was a kid, most politicians were 75% concerned with what was good for the country and 25% on winner-takes-all.  At least on big-ticket items like Pearl Harbor or etc.

Nowadays I feel like most politicians are 98% concerned with winning, even if it pertains to Isis or etc.

Honestly do agree with Camille Paglia:  we could be seeing the death throes of the Roman Empire in this generation.

36

Reagan worked with O'Neill.

Clinton worked with Gingrich.

After Obama's first election, McConnell said, "our single most important goal" was to defeat him in 2012.

So that's where we are.

37

Check out O'Neill comments about Reagan.  Viscious.....

Yet Reagan worked with him.

Our current President has no interest in bipartisan effort.  He's decent at blaming everything (including his own foreign policy) on the GOP, however.

38

American politics need to be sterilized.

That's why Sanders has my support. He not only understands it, he's willing to say it over and over. The rest of 'em pretend the system is perfect - although maybe Trump has something there, I just haven't heard it.

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.