Trump's Disasterous Week

kslib72 wrote: "Did you see that The Atlantic fileted Trump yesterday?"

Like a North Atlantic cod.

"...our interest here is not to advance the prospects of the Democratic Party, nor to damage those of the Republican Party. If Hillary Clinton were facing Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any of the leading candidates Trump vanquished in the Republican primaries, we would not have contemplated making this endorsement. We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters.
But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent."

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/201...donald-trump/501161/

And don't forget this

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/299592-doze...-opposition-to-trump

Both are spot on. Trump is a horrid person and candidate. I disagree that his opponent is any better... AT ALL. She may well be worse. Either way, neither deserve our vote and with all the dissatisfaction for these two candidates, it seems to me that the loon Johnson is actually a better candidate. Certainly would force the Democrats and Republicans to work together and maybe for the country instead of their own parties.

This isn't an either or option. They both stink horribly. I actually give the Republicans a bit of credit in their denouncing Trump. If Democrats had any moral and ethical sense they would do the same to Hillary.

As a side note, given how bad a candidate and person Trump is, isn't a bit shocking and sad that he has actually been in the running for President? If nothing else that is a damning indictment of Hillary as well. Basically people are saying Trump is horrible, but so is Hillary.

It disgusts me that these two are the best that either party can present to the American people.

i have stated many reasons why I found them both to be a deplorable people. Her inability to do anything but lie, her abuse of power, her flopping around on issues and saying whatever the current people near her want to hear. Is she for against anything? As far as can be determined she is for herself and will try to eviscerate anyone who comes across her path even when they are telling the truth. She is a despicable human being.

Sadly, the other major party chose about the only person out there that could even remotely make her look even a slight bit better. They were running neck and neck there for a reason. Most people can't stand either of them. Sadly, one of those two stains on humanity will be our President.

I have no doubt that is the way you view Trump supporters. Pretty much anything you don't agree with seems to fall into that category. Opposition to most of your views has always been dismissed as uninformed, racist, etc. I find it amazing when I talk to Hillary supporters and the amount of uninformed gullible people there is about the same as those supporting Trump. I know both sides want to claim superiority, but neither has a leg to stand on, specially with these two candidates.

While I don't like pretty much anything that Trump stands for and projects, a lot of his support isn't just the uninformed, it is a revolt against the political bureaucracy and path both of the parties have been taking us down.

Calling it like you see it is fine, but when it is a position of consistent dismissal and labeling, it kind of ruins any credibility you might think you have. Makes no real difference to me. I call it like I see it too, just from a vastly different perspective. No big deal.

I am not deflecting, I have listed many times why I think she is a horrible person/candidate. The travel fiasco when Bill first was in office and the missing files, whitewater, her attacking and trying to destroy women who had affairs and told the truth about it, Senate Rules violations, her lies about her server use and her understanding of classified material, Benghazi lies etc. etc. The list is nearly endless. I have found that she rarely tells the truth. (As for the Iraq war change, I actually respect her change of that and admission that she was wrong, but that is few and far between.) What difference does it make about how often Trump lies? Did I say he told the truth? Did I defend him? Talk about a deflection!

As for flip flopping, she is against gay marriage then she is for it, she is for African Americans, except when she wants to bring them to heel, she is a progressive democrat except when she is a moderate, pretty much every time she opens her mouth on a topic (specially one that is critical of anything she has done) it is a lie. Again for the record, I was and still in complete agreement on her original stance of gay marriage. For those that may have forgotten, that stance was that civil unions were absolutely fine and that they should have all the same rights and responsibilities of any other couple. Just the work marriage has meaning. In other words all the rights and responsibilities, but under a different word. Why is that important to me? Because words have meaning. Take the word "racist" for example. It has specific meaning. But today it is used instead of the more appropriate words of "bigot" "racial" or "ignorant". But by labeling any bigoted comment or a racial comment as racist, you place an unfair burden upon the other, dismiss the argument, malign the other position and don't ever have to address the real issue.

But given that she is for something until she is against it, I find it difficult to trust anything she says.

I agree completely with you regarding Trump and his horrid abilities and personality, but that doesn't mean that everyone who supports his ticket is just like him. If that were so, then I would consider every Hillary supporter to be incapable of telling the truth, dishonest, and horrid as human beings. I don't believe that, nor should you generalize as to others views for those that support either horrible candidate.

I agree completely we all evolve and grow (some recede) based upon our life experiences. I have lived all over the world and been subject to a wide variety of experiences, both good and bad. That along with my parental foundation developed my lens of life that I view everything through. So have you, so has Doc, Allen, Boulder, and everyone else in the world.

That is different then changing your stance depending on the forum you are in.

But here is a nuance to your statement regarding gay marriage. Just because you were opposed to the use of the term, does not make you homophobic or against them in any way. It just means that the term has certain meaning. I have said and continue to say that they should have all the rights and responsibilities associated with any other civil union. It is the term that I have issue with. That does not make me anti gay, or homophobic, or against their rights, or anything else, just that I believe that words have meaning. Hence my description of the use of the term "racist" previously.

A companion argument for review. I do not believe that we can know with all certainty that is causing ALL of the climate change. I hear Doc constantly say that ALL of science is in agreement. Whenever I hear things like you must believe as we do or you are wrong, it bothers me. It smacks of totalitarian regimes and the inability to openly discuss issues. It belittles the opposition, which may have valid commentary and dismisses any opposition. I have repeatedly said that we are polluting our environment. We are spewing stuff into the air, onto the land and into the water and this cannot be good. I have repeatedly said that we are having a negative impact on the environment and are contributing to the changes we are experiencing. I just do not believe that a system as complex as ours is can be defined by science models that tend to target our poor environmental practices as the major or sole cause. Specially when we can barely forecast the weather (yes I am aware of the differences between short term and long term and micro versus macro factors in play.) For that, I am labeled a climate change denier. It is absurd. Just because I do not buy completely into a position I am defined as completely opposed to the position. This is why words have meaning.

I am more for gay rights and racial equality than you could ever know, but because I believe in certain words having meaning, folks here and else where have decided that I am opposed to such thoughts or concepts. It is almost laughable if it wasn't sad in its own way

Doc said:
"Totalitarian regimes?" Oh, please! That's a bit over-dramatic, don't you think? After all, "words have meaning."

I stand by the comment in the context I provided:
"Whenever I hear things like you must believe as we do or you are wrong, it bothers me. It smacks of totalitarian regimes..."

Based upon my experience, it is not over-dramatic or hyperbole at all.

Regarding the climate change, I agree that having a discussion about the age of the earth, when someone uses the Bible to determine that would be futile. But to have a scientific discussion where only one view point is accepted is also futile. My point is that with time, we learn more and more about what we didn't know before. At one point we had no idea that radio waves existed. We have tools that measure that now. So while I believe that we are impacting our environment and anything, within reason, we can do to stop that is a good thing, I don't believe we know all that there is to know. Hence I will say that we MAY be the primary cause, but it is irrelevant to me what the primary cause is, because we can only control one thing and that is our impact. So why do I HAVE to agree with the models when there may well be more out there that we don't know or yet understand. Seems arrogant to think we can know it all at this point in time, when we are still developing tools to understand things.

Saying we are better at weather forecasts than we were 10 or 20 years ago is meaningless. better than bad is not the measure of accuracy or correctness.

Cancer caused by cigarettes and climate change are two vastly different scientific issues utilizing vastly different scientific methods to determine the conclusions. But even if I did agree that these tow tremendously different scientific approaches were the same, think about the conclusions an how they are presented. One is, "You will die if you smoke these, our science has proven this, but you don't have to believe me, smoke 'em if you want 'em." The other is, "We say this is so, so you must agree with me or you are ignorant and will be dismissed accordingly."

If you can't see the difference between those two things, you will never understand my point. So I will copy it again and hope that you can see what I am saying and stop attempting to restate my comment.

"Whenever I hear things like you must believe as we do or you are wrong, it bothers me. It smacks of totalitarian regimes..."

This is perhaps where the lens of life comes in to play. Having lived in and around totalitarian regimes where all must agree with the current mantra, this smacks of that same thing. Nowhere did I a say it was totalitarian, just that it smacks of it and it makes me become vary wary of the science. The manner in which is being presented, the manner in which any questioning of it is treated and the manner in which any discussion is curtailed is disturbing. It disturbs me in every facet of life when I encounter such nonsense.

And let's be clear on my view. I don't care what the models say. Not a bit. What we are doing to the environment is bad. I have said so for more than 40 years. I just don't like the current method of demagoguery that is in place with the current view point.

As for your last shot, "Weather forecasts are actually quite good now. But then, I didn't expect you to agree with me." All I said is being better than bad isn't room for bragging. They are quite good in some places and not all that good in others. But I didn't expect you to even try to understand me.

I could, but since it is Hillary, the responses I would receive would be, she grew, evolved, was mis-represented, etc. Why do I say this, because right after the FBI showed where Hillary lied/misled about her email and server, you asked for proof that she did. If you won't accept that, you aren't going to accept anything else regarding negativity of her. I don't want to get called condescending or any other such nonsense. Let's just say if it was a Republican, you would be calling her out and mocking her mercilessly.

Both these candidates are disgusting. Trump absolutely turns my stomach as much as Hillary does and often for the same reasons. Just bask in the glow that your disgusting candidate will beat the other disgusting candidate.

lol... okay. Other than this one, I have answered every question posed to me. I just know when I would be beating my head against the wall or whether there might be a fruitful discussion, this would have been a head banger. For the record, I asked a number of questions to you in the past and you never answered them. So, you saying I am avoiding a discussion is almost laughable. But if you wish to embrace your denial of all things negative to Hillary and accuse me of avoiding discussion, that is certainly your right.

Fear not. I will be departing these forums again in the near future. I hadn't really posted much here in a long while, but these two horrid people caused a need to vent and, unfortunately, I chose this forum. Not certain really why I did as I knew how set both sides are in this thing, but I did.