[jogs]

Of course, Trump has a massive ego. But so does Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Why would you want a humble wimp to be president? It's about legacy. Trump wants history to remember Trump as the greatest president for the American people. For the past 30 years the bottom 80% has seen their prospects flat or trending down. Their children will have a lower standard of living than themselves. Trump plans to protect the interest of the bottom 80%.

The president of the USA is the leader of the free world. Obama took that to heart. It is actually only an honorary designation. The US president can't give orders to the free world. Obama did on numerous occasions take sides with the world against the interest of Americans. When the world leaders joined hands against terrorism, Obama was sadly missing. Trump will side with Americans every time.

Trump is against 'free' trade. The left assumes this means Trump is against all trade. Obviously that's not true. Trump has his brand all over the world. Trump is against dumb trade. The USA is the most powerful country in the world. The USA should not negotiate with other nations as equals. It's like Don Corleone making deals with the other families. USA should dictate the terms.

Trump has been working 15-20 hours a day since the election. Do any of you think HRC is capable of working even 10 hours a day?

[kenberg]

jogs, on 2016-December-24, 10:03, said:

Of course, Trump has a massive ego. But so does Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Why would you want a humble wimp to be president? It's about legacy. Trump wants history to remember Trump as the greatest president for the American people. For the past 30 years the bottom 80% has seen their prospects flat or trending down. Their children will have a lower standard of living than themselves. Trump plans to protect the interest of the bottom 80%.

The president of the USA is the leader of the free world. Obama took that to heart. It is actually only an honorary designation. The US president can't give orders to the free world. Obama did on numerous occasions take sides with the world against the interest of Americans. When the world leaders joined hands against terrorism, Obama was sadly missing. Trump will side with Americans every time.

Trump is against 'free' trade. The left assumes this means Trump is against all trade. Obviously that's not true. Trump has his brand all over the world. Trump is against dumb trade. The USA is the most powerful country in the world. The USA should not negotiate with other nations as equals. It's like Don Corleone making deals with the other families. USA should dictate the terms.

Trump has been working 15-20 hours a day since the election. Do any of you think HRC is capable of working even 10 hours a day?

Innumerable times when I was a prof, a student would say "I just can't understand why I did poorly on the exam, I stayed up all night studying for it". Crises happen, and that can require endurance, but I think we will all be better off if on a regular basis the president gets, and students get, a full night's sleep.

And while it may be an unrealistic expectation, I would hope that a president concentrates on the matter at hand and leaves legacy issues to the historians. The 80%? People are always saying such things, I am not sure how to compute the percentages. I am financially much better off now than when I was 20, but hardly rich. I drink decent wine, but I still look at the price tag. When I was 20 I looked around for an empty coffee cup in the cafeteria and took it back for a free refill. So 80% of what and when? Trump, any president, can watch out for my needs by holding the country together and coping with the demands of the future. I am not what you would call optimistic. But we shall see.

Don Corleone? No thanks. Strength is good and should be used, but it is unrealistic to expect the rest of the world to roll over for Corleone tactics. Some offers can be refused.

[Cyberyeti]

I happen to think that Hillary would accomplish more in 10 hours than Trump would in 20.

[awm]

jogs, on 2016-December-24, 10:03, said:

Trump has been working 15-20 hours a day since the election. Do any of you think HRC is capable of working even 10 hours a day?

Really? He seems to have time to tweet crazy stuff. And time to hold random victory rallies. But no time to meet with the state department. I'm not really sure I'd class what he is doing as working, nor do I see any reason to think he's spending 15-20 hour days.

[y66]

Trump can do more stupid stuff in a single tweet than HRC can do in a lifetime.

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2016-December-24, 10:03, said:

Of course, Trump has a massive ego. But so does Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Why would you want a humble wimp to be president? It's about legacy. Trump wants history to remember Trump as the greatest president for the American people. For the past 30 years the bottom 80% has seen their prospects flat or trending down. Their children will have a lower standard of living than themselves. Trump plans to protect the interest of the bottom 80%.

The president of the USA is the leader of the free world. Obama took that to heart. It is actually only an honorary designation. The US president can't give orders to the free world. Obama did on numerous occasions take sides with the world against the interest of Americans. When the world leaders joined hands against terrorism, Obama was sadly missing. Trump will side with Americans every time.

Trump is against 'free' trade. The left assumes this means Trump is against all trade. Obviously that's not true. Trump has his brand all over the world. Trump is against dumb trade. The USA is the most powerful country in the world. The USA should not negotiate with other nations as equals. It's like Don Corleone making deals with the other families. USA should dictate the terms.

Trump has been working 15-20 hours a day since the election. Do any of you think HRC is capable of working even 10 hours a day?

Quote

Trump plans to protect the interest of the bottom 80%.

How so? Is filling his cabinet with people who are billionaires and political extremists accomplish that goal? Or are you relying solely on the slogans his espouses?

Quote

The left assumes this means Trump is against all trade.

Where do you get these ideas? Is there any room for nuance in your views or is everything completely black and white?

Quote

When the world leaders joined hands against terrorism, Obama was sadly missing.

Explain this, please. I don't know what in the world you are talking about.

Quote

The USA should not negotiate with other nations as equals. It's like Don Corleone making deals with the other families. USA should dictate the terms.

And then you can't understand why terrorists hate us....

[mikeh]

jogs, on 2016-December-24, 10:03, said:

The president of the USA is the leader of the free world. Obama took that to heart. It is actually only an honorary designation. The US president can't give orders to the free world.



The USA is the most powerful country in the world. The USA should not negotiate with other nations as equals. It's like Don Corleone making deals with the other families. USA should dictate the terms.

The problem with being a trump supporter is that one has to abandon all pretence at actually thinking, as opposed to repeated learned bullshit. Hence jogs can, in a single post, combine both of these sentences without seeming to realize the idiocy reflected therein.

[helene_t]

somehow I don't buy the post fact concept. people have believed in bullshit all the time I recall. actually when I was young most of my adult friends voted based on urban legends. one if my friends supported the law of nature party whose leader claimed to be able to cancel gravity by willpower. Today at least we have Google. less excuse for staying misinformed.

[Kaitlyn S]

awm, on 2016-December-23, 00:20, said:

Bill Clinton was president for eight years. In what way did the people have less voice in 2000 than they did in 1992? In what way was our country a train wreck or closer thereto?

Barack Obama has been president for close to eight years. In what way do the people have less voice in 2016 than they did in 2008? In what way is our country a train wreck or closer thereto?

How will Hillary Clinton be so much worse than her husband, or Barack Obama?

This statement (which you've made repeatedly) makes absolutely no sense to me. What objective criteria do you use to decide whether a president has done a good job? Can you even do this without being told what party that president came from?

During my lifetime there have been only two major events which I could identify as making our country a "train wreck" -- the economic crash of 2008 and the 2016 election of Donald Trump. I wouldn't be inclined to blame either of these on Democrats.

I've been wanting to answer this but I've been quite busy. But maybe this will give you insight into the mind of a Trump voter because this line of thinking is quite common.

Barack Obama couldn't kill the America as we know it because the best he could do is get a 4-4 Supreme Court. He did the best he could; he appointed two justices that do not rule on the basis of what the Constitution says, but instead rules on the basis of what they would like it to say from their progressive standpoint. Many of us who love America as given to us by the Founding Fathers think that this would be the end to America as we know it, with justices that could effectively rule that the Constitution is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already made a mockery of the ninth and tenth amendments (State's rights? The states got no stinkin' rights) and most of us believe that Hillary would have put on justices to nullify the Second Amendment and shortly after, the First Amendment. (Newspapers want to say something against the progressive movement? Not in Hillary's America!) For those that think this is total nonsense, I have two words for you: Lois Lerner.

Maybe our fears were unfounded but there are very VERY many Trump voters IMO that thought that Trump would be a terrible President but the country would survive him, and that the Constitution would be a worthless piece of paper under Hillary's presidency.

So, perhaps I am saying that Hillary is not worse that Obama or Bill Clinton, but she had the setup to ruin America as we know it and they didn't. If Scalia had died in 2013 we probably would have already seen the dismantling of America.

NOTE: Obama has set a very scary precedent putting on politically motivated justices. If Trump follows suit (out of vindictiveness or just because he can) and the court rules that the heartbeat abortion law should overrule anything that states have passed, I will realize that I had two choices that could both ruin the country and had no good out. I essentially bet that Trump would not abuse his power in such a way but that Hillary would. It's possible that I am wrong and that either one could potentially ruin the country. I will be quite upset if Trump pulls this or if Trump appoints justices that rule that gayness should be treated like a disease and forces this nonsense on the American public. However, it will be very hard to convince me that Hillary would not have fundamentally changed America with her SCOTUS picks, and IMO in a very bad way.

Trump was a flawed candidate. If the Democrats had put up a candidate that I thought might put moderate, non-political justices on the Supreme Court, I would have had to consider voting for zhim.

[kenberg]

I am hacking into this thread to wish:
Happy Holidays and Best Wishes to one and all

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

[Kaitlyn S]

kenberg, on 2016-December-24, 13:35, said:

I am hacking into this thread to wish:
Happy Holidays and Best Wishes to one and all

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

I would like to wish everybody a Merry Christmas. To those who feel offended, please accept my wishes for a Hanu Rama Kwanzmas.

In other words, enjoy your holiday

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-24, 13:25, said:

I've been wanting to answer this but I've been quite busy. But maybe this will give you insight into the mind of a Trump voter because this line of thinking is quite common.

Barack Obama couldn't kill the America as we know it because the best he could do is get a 4-4 Supreme Court. He did the best he could; he appointed two justices that do not rule on the basis of what the Constitution says, but instead rules on the basis of what they would like it to say from their progressive standpoint. Many of us who love America as given to us by the Founding Fathers think that this would be the end to America as we know it, with justices that could effectively rule that the Constitution is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already made a mockery of the ninth and tenth amendments (State's rights? The states got no stinkin' rights) and most of us believe that Hillary would have put on justices to nullify the Second Amendment and shortly after, the First Amendment. (Newspapers want to say something against the progressive movement? Not in Hillary's America!) For those that think this is total nonsense, I have two words for you: Lois Lerner.

Maybe our fears were unfounded but there are very VERY many Trump voters IMO that thought that Trump would be a terrible President but the country would survive him, and that the Constitution would be a worthless piece of paper under Hillary's presidency.

So, perhaps I am saying that Hillary is not worse that Obama or Bill Clinton, but she had the setup to ruin America as we know it and they didn't. If Scalia had died in 2013 we probably would have already seen the dismantling of America.

NOTE: Obama has set a very scary precedent putting on politically motivated justices. If Trump follows suit (out of vindictiveness or just because he can) and the court rules that the heartbeat abortion law should overrule anything that states have passed, I will realize that I had two choices that could both ruin the country and had no good out. I essentially bet that Trump would not abuse his power in such a way but that Hillary would. It's possible that I am wrong and that either one could potentially ruin the country. I will be quite upset if Trump pulls this or if Trump appoints justices that rule that gayness should be treated like a disease and forces this nonsense on the American public. However, it will be very hard to convince me that Hillary would not have fundamentally changed America with her SCOTUS picks, and IMO in a very bad way.

Trump was a flawed candidate. If the Democrats had put up a candidate that I thought might put moderate, non-political justices on the Supreme Court, I would have had to consider voting for zhim.

I realize you are answering Adam but I am flabbergasted at your response and deeply saddened. It appears from the small sampling of posts we have seen here, including this one, that the common denominator among Trump supporters is a disassociation with objective reality in favor of a subjective one.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-24, 13:50, said:

I realize you are answering Adam but I am flabbergasted at your response and deeply saddened. It appears from the small sampling of posts we have seen here, including this one, that the common denominator among Trump supporters is a disassociation with objective reality in favor of a subjective one.

Better get used to it, as this faction's time has come and has to be dealt with. Madison, in Federalist paper 10, laid out his fear that the populist faction needed to be prevented (EC etc.) because they didn't have the best interests of the elite at heart. Imagine that!
Based on his appointments to date, I wouldn't expect the elite to be in any danger but the political class will have to be flexible or they will be replaced. Trump, like a lot of bosses, has a very narrow view of what constitutes success and a very large belief that this view is correct.

[awm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-24, 13:25, said:

Barack Obama couldn't kill the America as we know it because the best he could do is get a 4-4 Supreme Court. He did the best he could; he appointed two justices that do not rule on the basis of what the Constitution says, but instead rules on the basis of what they would like it to say from their progressive standpoint. Many of us who love America as given to us by the Founding Fathers think that this would be the end to America as we know it, with justices that could effectively rule that the Constitution is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already made a mockery of the ninth and tenth amendments (State's rights? The states got no stinkin' rights) and most of us believe that Hillary would have put on justices to nullify the Second Amendment and shortly after, the First Amendment. (Newspapers want to say something against the progressive movement? Not in Hillary's America!) For those that think this is total nonsense, I have two words for you: Lois Lerner.

So if this is all about the supreme court, there must be some series of recent decisions where the court narrowly decided on the side of "freedom" and "the constitution" whereby a ruling the other way would have been disastrous? What exactly are these rulings?

My memory of recent closely-divided court decisions includes several stinkers where conservative justices seemed to be the one ignoring precedent and the constitution -- notably Bush v. Gore (election should not be decided based on counting the actual votes! the court even recognized that this should "not be viewed as setting precedent"), Citizens United (corporations are people, money is speech -- constitution says no such thing and in fact the founders were very much anti-corporation and worried about bribery of officials, see the emoluments clauses in the constitution for example; this also overturned decades of campaign finance law), and overturning large parts of the Voting Rights Act (seemingly defying the constitutional amendments passed after the civil war, and enabling a series of voter-suppression laws and gerrymanders in i.e. North Carolina which target African Americans with "almost surgical precision" as stated in another subsequent case, but which unfortunately could not be prevented prior to an election because of the voiding of VRA pre-clearance provisions).

As far as Lois Lerner, she was cleared of wrong-doing by the same FBI which acted in a nakedly partisan manner in favor of the Republican candidate in our most recent election. The facts of this matter are that we had a number of "charitable" organizations (on both sides) which were effectively political action committees. When they claimed they wanted to be treated as "charities" for tax purposes they were flagged for additional scrutiny since their name and stated purpose seemed to be political fundraising rather than charity. Of course, congressional republicans were only interested in cases where conservative "charitable organizations" were so flagged (totally ignoring the smaller but still-significant number of cases where liberal organizations were flagged). And in fact most of these organizations ended up getting their favorable tax treatment (after some additional back and forth). This is another example of a manufactured conservative scandal... and anyway, what was presented to the supreme court here? And do you really think that after years of trying to break the unions, a conservative administration won't go after liberal political groups with great zeal and effectiveness?

[Kaitlyn S]

awm, on 2016-December-24, 16:18, said:

So if this is all about the supreme court, there must be some series of recent decisions where the court narrowly decided on the side of "freedom" and "the constitution" whereby a ruling the other way would have been disastrous? What exactly are these rulings?

I, and many other conservatives expect, that cases that would fundamentally change America away from the original intent have not been brought before the Supreme Court because they would not win. However, have Hillary put a justice or two on the court and the math changes. America would become exactly what the progressives want it to be - which the conservatives fear is a nanny state.

Winston and awm: I am not saying our fears are correct. It was asked why people voted for Trump. I am telling you why I voted for Trump and why I feel many others did. If one peruses the discussion in any 9-12 group before the election, you will see this fear over and over again. I was asked the question; I answered it. I don't feel like I have to justify my answer - I'm not telling you why you should have voted for Trump; I don't think you should have with your current beliefs. Many of you would be quite happy with the America that I feared would result if Hillary won. I know I wouldn't be so I voted against her.

But when people are searching for reasons why one would vote for Trump, the best I can do is give my honest answer, and let you know that I think others feel as I did. To answer that question, I don't have to show that my feelings are justified; I have not convinced a single one of you that they are and I am not going to this time either. However, when several of you ask the question "How could an educated person vote for Trump" I thought the least I could do is to answer it.

[awm]

So basically feelings of irrational fear that your "freedom would be taken away" -- based on essentially no evidence -- were more important than all the disqualifying things I listed in my earlier post.

You've pretty much proved my point for me.

[Kaitlyn S]

awm, on 2016-December-25, 01:43, said:

So basically feelings of irrational fear that your "freedom would be taken away" -- based on essentially no evidence -- were more important than all the disqualifying things I listed in my earlier post.

You've pretty much proved my point for me.

We will never know if my fears were irrational or not. It's possible that I was correct and am going called crazy anyway.

[Al_U_Card]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-25, 01:51, said:

We will never know if my fears were irrational or not. It's possible that I was correct and am going called crazy anyway.

Well, you certainly showed that your concern was a gut reaction or instinctive, both of which have merit, with their own logic and reason even if that fails to meet the criteria of some. Politics has more to do with feelings and reactions than academic analysis, which also has its place in the discourse if not as much in the actual process. Were we robots run by computers, life would be so much simpler, if a lot less appealing.
Good will toward men means just that. Harping and decrying is for another time and place.
Happy holidays to all!

[awm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-25, 01:51, said:

We will never know if my fears were irrational or not. It's possible that I was correct and am going called crazy anyway.

Here's the thing -- you are afraid Hillary Clinton would've appointed a supreme court justice who will "take your freedom away." But she's never said she would do such a thing. And there's never been a supreme court case where your freedom was on the line and the judgment was close. So it's just a feeling.

However, Donald Trump has directly promised to take freedom away from many people! He has said that he will remove the parents of many of my wife's students from our country (as they are undocumented, even though they are otherwise law-abiding and hard-working people). Even those latinos who are citizens will likely have to carry papers all the time and repeatedly prove their citizenship to prevent being targeted by INS. He has supported "stop and frisk" whereby black or latino citizens may be stopped and searched simply based on the color of their skin (a practice which has been shown not to reduce crime and has been considered unconstitutional). He has proposed surveillance in places of worship. He has appointed people to enforce voting rights who don't seem to think dark-skinned Americans aught to be able to vote (Jeff Sessions). He's released ads blaming Jewish bankers for the country's woes, and has close links to groups that advocate something like a second holocaust (white nationalists).

My point is that you (and apparently a lot of people) have decided that this vague feeling was more dangerous than a very direct threat to a large fraction of Americans! Since election, Trump's appointments show every indication that he plans to follow through with these threats. The election was in part a referendum on the rights of non-white non-Christian people, and you voted against us! Now if it was really "our rights" versus "your rights" it's understandable, but I didn't hear Hillary Clinton proposing to round up white christians and put them in detention camps (nor would it be reasonable to think that as a white christian herself, she would even contemplate such a thing).

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-25, 01:51, said:

We will never know if my fears were irrational or not. It's possible that I was correct and am going called crazy anyway.

In other words, you have no evidence for your choice, only feelings produced by inhaling daily doses of Rush, Hannity, Breitbart, and other outlets in the same pack? This approach to decision making reminds me of a smoker who in the face of mountains of evidence invents rationals in support of his addiction.