First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Trump INSISTED on including Jews and blacks
35037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/25/16 , edited 8/25/16
You know, I can actually add reasons to oppose Trump to that list now. He has stated that he'd be alright with detaining US citizens in military prisons and prosecuting them on charges of terrorism through military tribunals. So when he's talking about torturing people whether it works or not, when he speaks of rounding people up and shipping them to Guantanamo, when he speaks of trying people in military tribunals, he's also talking about doing that to US citizens.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/donald-trump/article95144337.html

So yeah. The 6th and 8th amendments' protections against gross abuses of power? Gone under Trump.
31688 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / M / Planet KLK-X
Offline
Posted 8/25/16
Donald Trump is no fool: The dangerous demagogue knows exactly what he’s saying
Pundits call his oratory style "off-the-cuff." It's anything but. Trump employs a sophisticated form of doublespeak
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/donald_trump_is_no_fool_the_dangerous_demagogue_knows_exactly_what_hes_saying_partner/
1105 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 8/25/16

BlueOni wrote:

You know, I can actually add reasons to oppose Trump to that list now. He has stated that he'd be alright with detaining US citizens in military prisons and prosecuting them on charges of terrorism through military tribunals. So when he's talking about torturing people whether it works or not, when he speaks of rounding people up and shipping them to Guantanamo, when he speaks of trying people in military tribunals, he's also talking about doing that to US citizens.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/donald-trump/article95144337.html

So yeah. The 6th and 8th amendments' protections against gross abuses of power? Gone under Trump.


I think that probably the best argument against Trump besides his rhetoric is that he has absolutely zero experience in politics yet he somehow thinks he's going to be able to make it as the top executive official of the world's only superpower. He hasn't been able to build connections, he's never had to navigate a legislature, and if what I here is true then he is dividing the Republican party, which means he's going into the job with the Democrats actively hating him and opposing him, and the Republicans being too divided too put up meaningful resistance.

Even if I was a US citizen who agreed with his positions i wouldn't have any faith in his ability to enact meaningful change. He has zero qualifications which suggest he knows how to run a government and how to deal with institutions like the House and the Senate.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 8/25/16
Did he? ok.
59230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / M / USA
Online
Posted 8/25/16

brookline wrote:

it would be better to have trump instead of clinton. black people have more to fear from clinton. she wants to flood in people from other countries which would make it hard for black americans and white americans to get jobs, education, and housing. we need to take care of black and white americans first. and native americans; the're having it bad too. i heard what it's like on the reservation.


Define 'flood' in this instance.

At last census, we have some 350 million people in the US. President Obama wanted to bring in some 60,000 Syrian refugees - that's hardly a flood.

We have an estimated 11-12 million undocumented/illegal immigrants (take your pick of adjective) as part of that 350 million - in other words about 3.4% of our current population. A fair portion have children who have been born here, making those children US citizens. That 3.4% can't vote in national elections, and can't (lawfully) collect Social Security except in unique circumstances.

Given the current political climate, there isn't any chance that a president would consider, even by executive order, allowing a massive immigration to occur.

In regards to the native American population, that's something that has been an issue for decades, if not for a century. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has admitted in the past that their records are so poorly maintained that they have no idea what monies are owed to the various tribes. The BIA has been repeatedly found in contempt of court orders to disburse funds (and no, it's not just the current administration that's been taken to task). At this point probably the only equitable solution would be to disburse funds on a one time basis based upon population, and then keep meticulous records going forward. Of course, you'll need to get Congress to sign off on that, since the power of the purse lies with the legislative branch.

We have more important things to worry about truthfully - like the deficit and the national debt. Currently neither major candidate's proposals come close to reining this particular problem in - and that's including some pretty generous assumptions on how we'll stimulate the economy and increase the cash flow available to the government.

To be honest, I haven't ever seen a pair of major candidates this bad. Unfortunately for candidate Trump, his campaign and comments have been egregious enough that I wouldn't consider voting for him, period. Insinuating the election could be 'rigged' against him doesn't help his case either, but does play nicely into the anti-establishment paranoia that's currently present in our political discourse.

I'm not happy with candidate Clinton, either - but at least she has experience in government. Accepting the role of the President of the United States isn't something you should entrust to a neophyte.

10646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/25/16

walker1455 wrote:

I think that probably the best argument against Trump besides his rhetoric is that he has absolutely zero experience in politics yet he somehow thinks he's going to be able to make it as the top executive official of the world's only superpower. He hasn't been able to build connections, he's never had to navigate a legislature, and if what I here is true then he is dividing the Republican party, which means he's going into the job with the Democrats actively hating him and opposing him, and the Republicans being too divided too put up meaningful resistance.

Even if I was a US citizen who agreed with his positions i wouldn't have any faith in his ability to enact meaningful change. He has zero qualifications which suggest he knows how to run a government and how to deal with institutions like the House and the Senate.


I don't think we have had a single president who has had real experience at the executive level since George H. W. Bush, so that's not really important. We have had a rabble rouser (who wants to be replaced by a career criminal), an oilman, a repeating adulturer, a CIA director, and an actor since 1980. The presidency is a different kettle of fish, I think. It's this current fetish for 'the appearance of competency and political experience' that is causing problems.
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/16 , edited 8/25/16

gornotck wrote:


walker1455 wrote:

I think that probably the best argument against Trump besides his rhetoric is that he has absolutely zero experience in politics yet he somehow thinks he's going to be able to make it as the top executive official of the world's only superpower. He hasn't been able to build connections, he's never had to navigate a legislature, and if what I here is true then he is dividing the Republican party, which means he's going into the job with the Democrats actively hating him and opposing him, and the Republicans being too divided too put up meaningful resistance.

Even if I was a US citizen who agreed with his positions i wouldn't have any faith in his ability to enact meaningful change. He has zero qualifications which suggest he knows how to run a government and how to deal with institutions like the House and the Senate.


I don't think we have had a single president who has had real experience at the executive level since George H. W. Bush, so that's not really important. We have had a rabble rouser (who wants to be replaced by a career criminal), an oilman, a repeating adulturer, a CIA director, and an actor since 1980. The presidency is a different kettle of fish, I think. It's this current fetish for 'the appearance of competency and political experience' that is causing problems.


Why did you add in the stipulation of "executive level"? Nobody said that Trump lacked "executive level" experience, but instead that he lacked experience in politics which all of those presidents since 1980 had (and they certainly aren't as far from politics as those extremely simplistic descriptors make them seem). Also, many of those presidents did have experience at the State executive level, which I think is very relevant experience primarily for the more domestic level of politics.

Also, wanting our president to appear competent is a problem?
10646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/25/16

sundin13 wrote:

Why did you add in the stipulation of "executive level"? Nobody said that Trump lacked "executive level" experience, but instead that he lacked experience in politics which all of those presidents since 1980 had (and they certainly aren't as far from politics as those extremely simplistic descriptors make them seem). Also, many of those presidents did have experience at the State executive level, which I think is very relevant experience primarily for the more domestic level of politics.

Also, wanting our president to appear competent is a problem?


The appearance of competence and not the actual fact, yes. Mistaking "political experience" for competence, yes. Downplaying business experience as being inapplicable to working with, and making decisions with, groups of people, yes.

Were my descriptions simplistic? Sure, very much so. But they were also indicative. There is nothing, at all, that Trump does that makes him less 'presidential' than would otherwise be the case. Not the things he says, not the things that he does.
314 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/25/16
Fuck trump and Hillary. Harambe 2016
1105 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 8/25/16 , edited 8/25/16

gornotck wrote:

I don't think we have had a single president who has had real experience at the executive level since George H. W. Bush, so that's not really important. We have had a rabble rouser (who wants to be replaced by a career criminal), an oilman, a repeating adulturer, a CIA director, and an actor since 1980. The presidency is a different kettle of fish, I think. It's this current fetish for 'the appearance of competency and political experience' that is causing problems.


I'm not necessarily saying experience at the executive level so much as political experience in general. And in that list of presidents, not a single one went into the job without any kind of experience with politics or some other aspect of statecraft. Ronald Reagan may have been an actor before he went into politics. But by the time he was running for President he wasn't Reagan the actor, he was Reagan the two-term Governor of California. George Bush senior, from 1967 to 1977 was a Congressman, an ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Envoy to China, the Director of Central Intelligence, and then a Vice-President for Ronald Reagan. Clinton went to Law school at Yale, was Attorney General of Arkansas, and then later Governor. George Bush Junior was actively involved in helping to run his father's campaigns and he was later Governor of Texas. Barack Obama was a Harvard Law graduate who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004, had experience with local government, was elected as an Illinois State Senator, and was later a US senator for Illinois who was on a number of Senate committees.

Even these people with their own history, backgrounds, and scandals tested the waters with lower positions before they moved all the way into the Presidency. I agree with you that it takes a lot more to be an effective leader than just giving the appearance of competence, because I'm sure a number of people will not have kind things to say about the performance of some of the Presidents I listed, regardless of their experience.

Experience isn't something you can disguise though, because you either have it or you don't. Someone who's been a Senator or Congressman would know far more about how these Institutions function than a novice would just by virtue of being there. It adds a sense of legitimacy to your name when you have lower positions under your belt, and an established career. Actually, I'd say Obama is an example of a President without sufficient experience and what can happen when one is running the show. He didn't have time to establish connections, learn the ins and outs of the government, or learn how to work the House and Senate in his favour.

Contrast that with Lyndon Johnson. He had an extensive career as a Congressman, a Senator, and later a majority whip. He was very effective when it came to passing Legislation. When his Civil Rights Bill was met with heavy opposition he was able to game the system into getting it passed because he was familiar with the tactics they were using to block it and was able to counter them. Johnson is the best example of how experience can benefit a President of the modern world, at least as far as I know.
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/16

gornotck wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Why did you add in the stipulation of "executive level"? Nobody said that Trump lacked "executive level" experience, but instead that he lacked experience in politics which all of those presidents since 1980 had (and they certainly aren't as far from politics as those extremely simplistic descriptors make them seem). Also, many of those presidents did have experience at the State executive level, which I think is very relevant experience primarily for the more domestic level of politics.

Also, wanting our president to appear competent is a problem?


The appearance of competence and not the actual fact, yes. Mistaking "political experience" for competence, yes. Downplaying business experience as being inapplicable to working with, and making decisions with, groups of people, yes.

Were my descriptions simplistic? Sure, very much so. But they were also indicative. There is nothing, at all, that Trump does that makes him less 'presidential' than would otherwise be the case. Not the things he says, not the things that he does.


I think that the appearance of competence is indicative to a certain extent of actual competence. Someone who gives the appearance of incompetence on a subject is unlikely to be an expert at it (unless they have some sort of crippling social anxiety, but that is beside the point here). This goes doubly so for presidential candidates because of how much they are actually tasked with talking about the issues. If someone can't get across a rational point of view says a pretty huge amount about their actual positions. I'll also add that this appearance of competence is important when trying to convince people to back your ideas. If you can't get them across in a way which inspires confidence, you may find difficulty getting people on your side.

I'll leave whether or not you think Trump gives the "appearance of competence" as a matter of opinion, but regardless, that appearance is quite important.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that your descriptions were in anyway indicative. Did Reagan's career as an actor say more about his presidency than his career as a governor? Do Clinton's troubles with adultery give you a more in depth view of his policy decisions than his experiences in politics? No. These men became president off of the back of their politics and their political careers.

Now what does that mean for Trump? Well, it doesn't mean that he should be disqualified in anyone's mind because he lacks experience, but it does mean that Trump has to go the extra mile to prove that he has a depth of understanding on the topics he talks about. I personally don't believe he has done that. I think his repeated "misspeakings" and poorly backed claims, speak to his actual depth of knowledge.

I also think that his business experience is valuable, but I don't think it is universally applicable. It does give him some insights into the minds of top business owners, possible understanding of business taxes etc, but I think that the business deal is largely different from the political deal. I also believe that his ability to "work across the aisle" is being shown quite clearly as being non-existent. He is despised so much that not even the Republicans really want to back him. I struggle to find hope for unity in a man who can't even secure the backing of his own party.

So I think we have seen quite a bit in him that makes him a fairly poor presidential candidate (although I leave whether you think he is better than Hillary to your own opinions) and I do think that the way he speaks also shows a lot of additional qualities that are unfavorable in a president that I haven't even mentioned here.
10646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/25/16

walker1455 wrote:

I'm not necessarily saying experience at the executive level so much as political experience in general. And in that list of presidents, not a single one went into the job without any kind of experience with politics or some other aspect of statecraft. Ronald Reagan may have been an actor before he went into politics. But by the time he was running for President he wasn't Reagan the actor, he was Reagan the two-term Governor of California. George Bush senior, from 1967 to 1977 was a Congressman, an ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Envoy to China, the Director of Central Intelligence, and then a Vice-President for Ronald Reagan. Clinton went to Law school at Yale, was Attorney General of Arkansas, and then later Governor. George Bush Junior was actively involved in helping to run his father's campaigns and he was later Governor of Texas. Barack Obama was a Harvard Law graduate who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004, had experience with local government, was elected as an Illinois State Senator, and was later a US senator for Illinois who was on a number of Senate committees.

Even these people with their own history, backgrounds, and scandals tested the waters with lower positions before they moved all the way into the Presidency. I agree with you that it takes a lot more to be an effective leader than just giving the appearance of competence, because I'm sure a number of people will not have kind things to say about the performance of some of the Presidents I listed, regardless of their experience.

Experience isn't something you can disguise though, because you either have it or you don't. Someone who's been a Senator or Congressman would know far more about how these Institutions function than a novice would just by virtue of being there. It adds a sense of legitimacy to your name when you have lower positions under your belt, and an established career. Actually, I'd say Obama is an example of a President without sufficient experience and what can happen when one is running the show. He didn't have time to establish connections, learn the ins and outs of the government, or learn how to work the House and Senate in his favour.

Contrast that with Lyndon Johnson. He had an extensive career as a Congressman, a Senator, and later a majority whip. He was very effective when it came to passing Legislation. When his Civil Rights Bill was met with heavy opposition he was able to game the system into getting it passed because he was familiar with the tactics they were using to block it and was able to counter them. Johnson is the best example of how experience can benefit a of President of the modern world, at least as far as I know.


Arguably Reagan was also a good example, as he got things passed by working both sides of the aisle.

More or less, political connections don't mean shit. I would almost go as far as to say that political connections are actually a detriment for the process. Being able to work people, and work with people, is more important and that is something that no president in the last 20 years really has been able to do. Obama, no matter how much 'experience' he got, would always be a bad president because he approaches the presidency in a bad way. He approaches politics in a bad way.

I just think that a Senator or Congressman's so-called experience mostly only applies to being a senator or congressman. It doesn't offer any real insight into how to be a good executive or judiciary member. A governor... I can see there being a manner of connection, but it doesn't always scale up. That's mostly up to the governor though.

I also think that it'd be a fallacy to say that someone like Trump lacks either the political connections or political experience. It's entirely possible that he knows these people fairly well, and at worst knows people who could advise him about it. That, more than anything, I think is important. No one man can know everything the President needs to know, and I think Trump's experiences would translate to being able to make solid decisions on less-than-adequate information bases.
tursup 
5015 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/25/16



Arguably Reagan was also a good example, as he got things passed by working both sides of the aisle.

More or less, political connections don't mean shit. I would almost go as far as to say that political connections are actually a detriment for the process. Being able to work people, and work with people, is more important and that is something that no president in the last 20 years really has been able to do. Obama, no matter how much 'experience' he got, would always be a bad president because he approaches the presidency in a bad way. He approaches politics in a bad way.

I just think that a Senator or Congressman's so-called experience mostly only applies to being a senator or congressman. It doesn't offer any real insight into how to be a good executive or judiciary member. A governor... I can see there being a manner of connection, but it doesn't always scale up. That's mostly up to the governor though.

I also think that it'd be a fallacy to say that someone like Trump lacks either the political connections or political experience. It's entirely possible that he knows these people fairly well, and at worst knows people who could advise him about it. That, more than anything, I think is important. No one man can know everything the President needs to know, and I think Trump's experiences would translate to being able to make solid decisions on less-than-adequate information bases.


I would argue you don't have the experience to be able to discern the better candidate for the country as you have no experience and operate on opinions. Hows that logic for ya? It is your logic.. Just actually do some research. You might be looking through rose tinted glasses at the information available.

A man who attended a KKK rally, cheated on wives, called a woman "disgusting" for wanted to have a medical break to pump breast milk (she was the opposing lawyer in the court case he was involved in). Values women based on their looks. Talks about how big his penis is to national leaders?? He states he consults with himself the most because he is "number one". And has dodged naming any of his cabinet members since February. I could go on but you are not listening either way.
The man is a joke. FACT

anyone believing in his ability to unite this county and actually fix the problems is someone who probably doesn't have issues with money and wouldn't care about minimum wage and affordable health insurance, has harsh views on women and minorities and an overall sense of superiority over other humans. If you think being ceo of a company and being the laughing stock of the new york billionaires club(as he has little to no actual liquid assets and a broke down "fleet of airplanes") qualify a man to run a country... well.. did you actually research his business career? OPINION
1105 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 8/26/16

gornotck wrote:

Arguably Reagan was also a good example, as he got things passed by working both sides of the aisle.

More or less, political connections don't mean shit. I would almost go as far as to say that political connections are actually a detriment for the process. Being able to work people, and work with people, is more important and that is something that no president in the last 20 years really has been able to do. Obama, no matter how much 'experience' he got, would always be a bad president because he approaches the presidency in a bad way. He approaches politics in a bad way.

I just think that a Senator or Congressman's so-called experience mostly only applies to being a senator or congressman. It doesn't offer any real insight into how to be a good executive or judiciary member. A governor... I can see there being a manner of connection, but it doesn't always scale up. That's mostly up to the governor though.

I also think that it'd be a fallacy to say that someone like Trump lacks either the political connections or political experience. It's entirely possible that he knows these people fairly well, and at worst knows people who could advise him about it. That, more than anything, I think is important. No one man can know everything the President needs to know, and I think Trump's experiences would translate to being able to make solid decisions on less-than-adequate information bases.


(Had to rewrite this whole goddamn thing because the backspace key decided to backspace to the previous page deleting all of my text.)

(Sigh...)

I wouldn't say that political connections are a detriment, though we might be describing them in different ways. Connections to me mean that you know who someone is, you know what they want, you know how to get them on your side, and you've built up favours with them that you can cash in when needed. That's why experience in the lower levels of government can be important, even if the experience you gain doesn't directly translate to being a good President, it does translate into insight about the powers of the the lower levels and how you can either work with them or counter them. You're not only learning who these people are, but you're learning the ins and outs of the government. Part of the President's job is presiding over these institutions, so knowing who everyone is and how the system functions is extremely beneficial to being able to work them to your benefit.

Again, my example of Lyndon Johnson stands as a way of showing how holding positions in Congress and the Senate in your early career can benefit a sitting President. Johnson was the master of the Senate, and was able to use the insight he gained from that time to work the lower levels how he wanted, because he knew the people and he knew their tactics. Hell, I think knowing how the lower levels of government work is essential for a politician no matter what country they're from.

As for Trump's experience, I think sundin13 made my point for me in his last post. As far as I know Trump has not demonstrated a depth of understanding on how the government functions. The fact that he is actively turning sections of the Republican party against him makes me doubt he'll be able to work across the aisle. Especially when his own party hates him, never mind the Democrats. We can't assume he does have any kind of connections or experience in politics, because he has no actual political career to show for it, so he has likely never interacted with them in matters regarding politics. Assuming he does have connections and experience would be working off of information that can't be confirmed, because there is no record of Trump ever having any kind of relationship with these people outside of his personal life.

Anyhow, I don't want to derail this thread further, and I really need to go to bed, so I'll be bugging out now. I'd be happy to continue this conversation tomorrow over PM if you'd like.
41705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/26/16 , edited 8/26/16
whether or not Trump is a racist himself isn't necessarily 100% the matter, as much as the fact that his supporters tend to be flaming bigots instead. If you attract that brand of folk, it's quite a negative reflection of character.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.