Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Sotha

US presidential election

Recommended Posts

Who will I vote for?

 

Neither.

 

Jill Stein exists!

 

Voting for a 3rd party candidate is the best chance we have to improve the options in the next election.

It will raise their standing in the general political sphere and force some provisions and funding to go their way.

 

What the US citizens need to wake-up to is that First-Past-the-Post voting is an obsolete setup that breeds corruption

and partizan cronyism.

 

Hopefully, we can get at least one candidate up to the 15% minimum to start the process. Otherwise it's imperative that citizens

be evangelized to pressure their representatives to reform voting rules. Do protests, get media exposure, etc... whatever it

takes to get the microscope onto the issue or else "the lesser of two evils" will become less and less metaphorical every election cycle.

 

It's already bad enough in the current race...

This is one thing, I have wondered for a long time: How many US citizens actually know that a third party candidate is an option? How likely will it be that third party candidates will get a reasonable amount of votes? Friends of mine told me that they visited a friend in the US during the pre-elections and they said that if their friend had not told them, they wouldn't even have known that the pre-elections took place. Also, their friend told them that she usually informs herself theough foreign media, because the coverage is better and less biased than the local media.

 

I have the same approach as freyk: I try to inform myself first and decide via online-tools that show you which party has the most overlap. However, in Germany there are a lot more parties to choose between. We also have a couple of big parties that mainly define the political field, but there are still a couple of smaller parties, we can choose. Of course, this has other dangers, like one especially right-winged party on the rise as many people vote them as aprotest against the big parties, but at least we get the feeling to have more choices. For this election, I would definitely vote for a third party candidate, as I find it it is better to "waste" your vote on a candidate that might not be elected rather than not voting and later complain about the outcome (as I am sure many people will do).

 

Anyway, I find this thread very, very interesting, as I get a lot of information about this election, especially not only from the European media, that are bisased themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything the fault in the excessive warmongering theory that the US meddles too much around the world - isn't sustainable. It was either too badly calculated, like the retreat from Iraq or weak negotiations and concessions when a strong position was required, point in case with Libya which needed strong support right away for a national unity government, Russia that only after 2013 was rightfuly blamed for passing every red line.

It seems that the Clinton voters seek a new Ronald Reagan in that regard. What her "reset with Russia" means we don't know.

 

However, realistically leaving the few places where the US is still involved with troops - i.e. Afghanistan, means compromising years of work towards trying to build at least a semi-stable government for regions, superstitiously thought to be doomed for eternal war, death and starvation. Ukraine that was always disadvantaged geographically, Georgia.

 

http://www.kasparov.com/blog-post/how-is-russia-impacting-2016-race-msnbc-live-with-stephanie-ruhle-102116/

 

That's not to say Trump can't do good and create a little variety internally for the US. Problem is, that with such a candidate the hybrid war may proove its effectiveness and Rusians gain not just territory but caputre new minds. That cycle is dangerous and scary for me. Considering we're in the XXI'st century. Capitalist pragmatism isn't enough for such an existential challenge.

 

 

 

This is something I never understood. Why is mass integration a danger to western societies? There are many (or a few very loud) persons here in germany who claims this all the time, too. But I never heard one good reason for that statement.

It's been there for decades. But people get riled up when its not eastern european migrants but muslims, whom they can neither understand, nor sympathize with.

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, """Muslims""" :D

Maybe after a life of street drugs dealing they turn to religion as a last anchor and become potential terrorists.....in perfect "mafia" style :P

I simply can't see these people as well-educated persons, the suddenly-turned-to-religion ones.

 

Bruxelles terrorists were petty criminals before. No Islam involved in that.....

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm loving the discussion thus far and it is nice to see varying points of view. Our community's ability to civil discussion is an example for many!

 

I see some threats here:

1) americans are divided into two somehow. Is it wealth or education I am not sure. Both factions live in their own bubble and cannot tolerate the other. Could this eventually in long run fester into a civil war of some level? The rethoric is quite threatening even now. Instability in the US would be problematic globally. So thus the US leaders should probably seek some sort of unification and reconciliation. I think the whole world benefits from good leaders and stability in the US.

 

2) Trump is Putin's choice for president. I live in Finland, which is a small country bordering Putin's Russia. That tells everything, right?

 

I'm relatively certain Trump would cause massive damage to US and the world in general. Of course, the officials probably do their best to quell the worst madness. Clinton, is a relative guarantee the everything continues pretty much like it used to, both in good and bad.

 

I would vote for stability rather than chaos. But many people are so hopeless that they are voting for chaos just in the hope that things will get better?

  • Like 2

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, """Muslims""" :D

Maybe after a life of street drugs dealing they turn to religion as a last anchor and become potential terrorists.....in perfect "mafia" style :P

I simply can't see these people as well-educated persons, the suddenly-turned-to-religion ones.

 

Bruxelles terrorists were petty criminals before. No Islam involved in that.....

Islam is not at fault. Most of those people were born in misery, violence and dictatorship regimes.

The only way to change the Muslim paradigm is a cultural revolution that reconciles the diferend of Shia and Sunni. Islam is still by analogy in the Protestant v. Catholic war that never ended. Various extremists profit from that somewhere in the middle.

 

The point is to have more Middle Eastern secular states like Lebanon, Jordan, Algeria, Tunis, Turkey. More or less that's the trend and it's a perfectly sane, properly dignified road for prosperity.

Notice how refugees were always either Syrian or Afghani, Libyan. It's not a coincidence. And their behaviour is simply a mirror of the faulty country they lived in.

We'll see a shift in the policy towards them after the elections of 2017 in major European countries. Good or bad. Alternatively repatriation programs when/if the situation changes. For example full control of the Libyan government forces over their territory is not far fetched. The agreement on a unity government is another topic altogether.

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for demagoguery, I'm a benevolent demagogue and know a hoax when I see one. The most worrisome thing going on right now is the boost Trump got this last week after the FBI story broke. It goes to show the outcome isn't a sure thing.

 

Speaking of the FBI story, I'm on board with the opinion that Hillary's email "scandal" is a red herring. The original rules were written before email and they're impractical to begin with, so they ought to be changed. And they're a confused mess and Hillary's behavior is consistent with someone trying to follow confusing rules in good faith. Some article in Vox explained it well. I know that conspiracy stories stick to her, but they don't move me. I'm a lawyer, so I'm just moved by expert legal opinions and the like. Anymore I just read UN and NGO reports anymore to know what's happening in the world.

 

Anyway, my politics are what you'd call cosmopolitan liberal (liberal in the UK sense, not the US sense. Free markets, free speech, open borders, technocracy & experts for regulations, etc.). It's traditionally the establishment Republican position, but definitely anti-Trump/Tea Party and today the centrist Democrats sort of have that space when they're not being manhandled by the leftist populists (Sanders et al). Obama and Hillary are passing but not the best. Hillary's turn against the TPP was unfortunate, for example. But she's still by far the only candidate even in the ballpark, so that pretty much makes my decision for me. As for my ideal, the UK LibDems are the only party I know still really holding the line & I wish we had them in the US. Tony Blair wrote an OpEd on "holding the line" in centrist liberalism and I sympathized with that too. It's very much out of vogue in the US.

 

So long story short, I don't understand this anti-intellectual or psuedo-intellectual populist surge happening all over the whole damn planet it seems, left and right. It's not for me.

  • Like 1

20js9wp.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long story short, I don't understand this anti-intellectual or psuedo-intellectual populist surge happening all over the whole damn planet it seems, left and right. It's not for me.

 

Populism doesn't seem neither good nor bad. Roosevelt was populist. In Ukraine someone like Nadeja Savchenko can be populist. It doesn't necesarily mean the leader is stupid or that he's pro-russian.

Seems like a weird coincidence that many populist leaders over the world are coincidentally proposing bad anti-immigration ideas and seem tied to Russia. Marie Le Pen, the Brexit movement with Farage, AfD and Pegida. Orban for a few years running now. All at the same time.

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) Trump is Putin's choice for president. I live in Finland, which is a small country bordering Putin's Russia. That tells everything, right?

Explain your views about, please :D

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(liberal in the UK sense, not the US sense. Free markets, free speech, open borders, technocracy & experts for regulations, etc.).

What you think about people who think "technocracy" is a form of PCUS-like communism?

'cause here in Italy we are literally submerged by the (Pravda-like, the irony) propaganda "Technocratic UE is the new PCUS! Beware the gulag! Beware the end of the world!".

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Populism doesn't seem neither good nor bad. Roosevelt was populist. In Ukraine someone like Nadeja Savchenko can be populist. It doesn't necesarily mean the leader is stupid or that he's pro-russian.

Seems like a weird coincidence that many populist leaders over the world are coincidentally proposing bad anti-immigration ideas and seem tied to Russia. Marie Le Pen, the Brexit movement with Farage, AfD and Pegida. Orban for a few years running now. All at the same time.

It seems like the "global right" (LOL!) copied the "liberal" think-tank strategy all over the world.....with a populist spin.

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain your views about, please :D

 

If there is only one superpower, they can do pretty much what they like to small countries. If there are two superpowers, status quo is maintained, because one superpower does not want to step on the toes of another.

 

Trump has said that US would reduce their support for Europe.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization


Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If there is only one superpower, they can do pretty much what they like to small countries. If there are two superpowers, status quo is maintained, because one superpower does not want to step on the toes of another.

 

Trump has said that US would reduce their support for Europe.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

Trump is hard to understand, he's pretty incoherent regarding that: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN11Y2EW

 

At any rate, I always thought it was true when said that "Wherever the USA goes, you get South Korea, wherever Russia goes, you get North Korea. I want our country to be South Korea."


"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain your views about, please :D

 

Russia wants the ability to control matters in its "sphere of influence".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence#1990s_to_present

 

NATO is a check on Russia's power to influence Eastern and Northern Europe, where the land of Fin is.

 

Various Trump statements have indicated an admiration for Vladimir Putin (a dictator) as well as willingness to withdraw support for NATO and ease U.S. pressure on Russia including lifting sanctions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was hoping that this would be the first presidential election where I would actually want to vote for one of the candidates rather than settling for the lesser of two evils. In the unlikely case that Clinton loses it will be a result of her own unlikeability and untrustworthiness--behind the scenes she's probably happy she's up against Trump and not someone even slightly more reasonable. Taking the purist route and voting third party would be a disaster. The problem is the first-past-the-post election system we have here (along with the many other ways that the current system favors the dominant parties) makes voting third party unviable. Bernie did pretty well considering what he started from and I hope that a more organized campaign with an earlier start will be more successful the next time around. It's about working within the system but not becoming too entrenched in it. (e.g. with the way you raise money)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was hoping that this would be the first presidential election where I would actually want to vote for one of the candidates rather than settling for the lesser of two evils. In the unlikely case that Clinton loses it will be a result of her own unlikeability and untrustworthiness--behind the scenes she's probably happy she's up against Trump and not someone even slightly more reasonable. Taking the purist route and voting third party would be a disaster. The problem is the first-past-the-post election system we have here (along with the many other ways that the current system favors the dominant parties) makes voting third party unviable. Bernie did pretty well considering what he started from and I hope that a more organized campaign with an earlier start will be more successful the next time around. It's about working within the system but not becoming too entrenched in it. (e.g. with the way you raise money)

To a certain degree that means that the next election's candidate from the other party will be better than the last one. Kind of an advantage with the two party system. Multi-party systems don't really feel so constrained to change and adapt.

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

as well as willingness to withdraw support for NATO

And noboby thinks it's a fairytale? USA not supporting a NATO resolution.....is awkward (and awkward is an understatement).

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about working within the system but not becoming too entrenched in it.

The primal problem of honest people :D

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And noboby thinks it's a fairytale? USA not supporting a NATO resolution.....is awkward (and awkward is an understatement).

 

Who would have thought the brits go and do Brexit? It did happen and everyone was stumped. Even the people who machinated it all.

 

Also, who would have thought that will be a time when party who gives a loan PAYS to the lender to take their money? Happens nowadays.

 

I would be careful in stating what is a fairytale and what is not.


Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm loving the discussion thus far and it is nice to see varying points of view. Our community's ability to civil discussion is an example for many!

 

I see some threats here:

1) americans are divided into two somehow. Is it wealth or education I am not sure.

+1

 

Regarding point 1: Wealth and education is tied together. IF you are not educated, you will hardly get wealthy, and if you are not wealthy, you'll have a hard time getting educated, unless you are a very special person.

 

 

Islam is not at fault. Most of those people were born in misery, violence and dictatorship regimes.

True, but I think lowenz was beeing cynical. As he said:

 

Bruxelles terrorists were petty criminals before. No Islam involved in that.....

 

It's been there for decades. But people get riled up when its not eastern european migrants but muslims, whom they can neither understand, nor sympathize with.

But they are so nice people. Has any of those aginners ever considered that they are coming because they do not like the negative aspects of their native countries that many of us for whatever reason consider to have anything to do with islam. It'S not like christs and jews would have behaved nice over the last centuries.

 

 

If there is only one superpower, they can do pretty much what they like to small countries. If there are two superpowers, status quo is maintained, because one superpower does not want to step on the toes of another.

True. Although the best situation for all of us would be no superpowers at all. As somehow I think that there is no politician, maybe even no person at all who can handle the responsibility.


FM's: Builder Roads, Old Habits, Old Habits Rebuild

WIP's: Several. Although after playing Thief 4 I really wanna make a city mission.

Mapping and Scripting: Apples and Peaches

Sculptris Models and Tutorials: Obsttortes Models

My wiki articles: Obstipedia

Texture Blending in DR: DR ASE Blend Exporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. Although the best situation for all of us would be no superpowers at all. As somehow I think that there is no politician, maybe even no person at all who can handle the responsibility.

Thank the gods we've got checks and balances than. For now.

 

 

But they are so nice people. Has any of those aginners ever considered that they are coming because they do not like the negative aspects of their native countries that many of us for whatever reason consider to have anything to do with islam. It'S not like christs and jews would have behaved nice over the last centuries.

Christians around Europe behaved better than eastern european christians. We had pogroms against jews well into the 20'th century. Of all the places Chisinau, Moldova in 1903 and 1905 saw some strong ones.

All of it is a combination of hatred, polarisation, extreme poverty, despair and an illiterate population in its majority. Religion is just a pretext.

Today politicians are torn over human rights for refugees and actually having a proper, working programme to integrate them (if they want that at all), or temporarily displacing them, to later deport them (especially economic ones) back. Like with that deal with Afghanistan.


"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I am concerned, this election has produced two suitable presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

 

 

I'm having legitimate difficulty figuring out how an intelligent person can consider Donald Trump a suitable candidate for presidency. I can somewhat imagine how someone might hate Hillary Clinton or the Democrats so much that they consider Trump the lesser of two evils (though I think that's debatable). I can also imagine single-issue voters holding their nose and voting for Trump because only the Republicans will support their views (Pro-life voters come to mind).

 

But to claim that he is actually a suitable candidate? What is that based on? He has demonstrated a considerable lack of knowledge, or even interest in knowledge. His speeches, at least when not reading them directly, are essentially white noise and bumper stickers. And when he goes off script and says what he really thinks, his narcissism is on full display. He is incredibly thin-skinned and vindictive, threatening to sue newspapers who criticize him. He comes off as a bully, attacking people on twitter even when it is strategically unwise to do so, demonstrating a complete lack of restraint. He boasts about being able to use power to get away with things, like assaulting women or not paying taxes. He refuses to release his tax returns and his excuses are demonstrably false. His record of making factually incorrect statements is ridiculously high, possibly only surpassed by his ability to say things that are incredibly unsettling and destabilizing, like encouraging foreign interference in an election, or musing about backing out of NATO, or asking why the US shouldn't use nukes, or suggesting he might not accept the result of a democratic election if he loses.

 

What exactly is it that makes him a suitable candidate?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm having legitimate difficulty figuring out how an intelligent person can consider Donald Trump a suitable candidate for presidency. I can somewhat imagine how someone might hate Hillary Clinton or the Democrats so much that they consider Trump the lesser of two evils (though I think that's debatable). I can also imagine single-issue voters holding their nose and voting for Trump because only the Republicans will support their views (Pro-life voters come to mind).

 

But to claim that he is actually a suitable candidate? What is that based on? He has demonstrated a considerable lack of knowledge, or even interest in knowledge. His speeches, at least when not reading them directly, are essentially white noise and bumper stickers. And when he goes off script and says what he really thinks, his narcissism is on full display. He is incredibly thin-skinned and vindictive, threatening to sue newspapers who criticize him. He comes off as a bully, attacking people on twitter even when it is strategically unwise to do so, demonstrating a complete lack of restraint. He boasts about being able to use power to get away with things, like assaulting women or not paying taxes. He refuses to release his tax returns and his excuses are demonstrably false. His record of making factually incorrect statements is ridiculously high, possibly only surpassed by his ability to say things that are incredibly unsettling and destabilizing, like encouraging foreign interference in an election, or musing about backing out of NATO, or asking why the US shouldn't use nukes, or suggesting he might not accept the result of a democratic election if he loses.

 

What exactly is it that makes him a suitable candidate?

 

I'll put it this way, being extremely charitable to Mr. Trump. Maybe playing Devil's advocate, you could say.

 

1. Someone clearly opposed by his own political party's establishment is an extremely attractive proposition. These voters want to see blood and change in their own party. They look at the party leadership and realize that they are like cattle for the elites. Evangelicals/conservatives in particular believe they are being exploited for cheap votes, while their social issues are being quietly abandoned (especially gay marriage, which centrist Republicans won't touch anymore, a big change from 10 years ago). That said, Trump is not the perfect candidate for this demographic, as he alluded to in his RNC nomination acceptance speech, and many of those voters preferred Ted Cruz. But by contrast, Hillary Clinton is unacceptable. Suitable as the lesser of two evils, yet again.

 

Other portions of Trump's base want to see blood in the water in Washington, D.C. They want to see a purge of corrupt and overpaid officials (and there are many, no doubt). They look at Trump with his partially self-financed campaign (seen as a major positive, since he "can't be bought") and his brash off-the-cuff statements, and they see a guy who could actually change things. A lot of nominees have claimed to "change the culture of Washington", but none have been so bitterly opposed by their own party. The implication is that a lot of politicians are scared of a Trump presidency, because they might not be able to survive it, and both their actions and words speak volumes.

 

(This is partly why Melan put Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the same sentence. They are two very different candidates, but they are linked by being opposed by their party establishments, as well as opposing certain things the elites want, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.)

 

Thus, in conclusion, Donald Trump's suitability as a candidate is derived from his unsuitability. He is unpredictable, yet unprecedentedly hostile towards his own party's establishment. That being said, there is reason to believe that Trump could win and throw his supporters under the bus. He had the "Art of the Deal" propaganda book written about him to establish his credentials as someone who can COMPROMISE, and compromise could mean complacency towards misdeeds, or even his own participation in graft. It's not like the Republicans in Congress are going to help Trump conduct a witch hunt. Wouldn't it be easier for President Trump to sit back and do nothing?

 

2. "Lack of knowledge"

 

Not an issue. He can claim that picking top-notch advisers is what is actually important, and that this "skill" of surrounding himself with knowledgeable people is what made him successful.

 

We can see that he has already assembled people in advance to advise him, including well-known Republicans (going against his anti-establishment cred) and some more fringe choices. He has also published potential Supreme Court picks in advance to allay his party's concerns.

 

The lack of knowledge displayed in his speeches and in the debates can be chalked down somewhat to being a terrible orator. Remember that heavy breathing in the debates? That's evidence that he is not prepared for that format. Yes, I'm using his lack of experience to defend his perceived lack of knowledge. B)

 

3. "Narcissistic, thin-skinned bully" and the rest of the post:

 

This is a bad trait for himself and any potential President. But it doesn't disqualify him.

 

As long as he hasn't done anything illegal (that can be proven beyond a doubt) then he is OK. The taxes thing was a Presidential tradition, not a requirement, although his explanation for not doing so was BS. The statements on women were played off as "locker room talk" and the allegations that came out later were given the Cosby treatment: desperate women coming out of the woodwork to gain publicity with false or unsubstantiated claims.

 

Foreign interference in the election is a huge can of worms because it goes far beyond the statement you referenced, which he played off as a joke: "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." I think that is a reasonable explanation of the comment. There have been claims since that Trump has some sort of direct or indirect contact with Russia, as well as some of his campaign staff. There are a lot of scare tactics mixed in there. At worst, I think we'll find that Putin took it upon himself to direct assets to cause mayhem in the U.S. elections. Undermining the legitimacy of the U.S. elections is great for making Western liberal democracy look chaotic and unappealing. Helping one of the most Russian-friendly candidates get into office is just a bonus. Note that China has used Trump as an example of why democracy is dysfunctional, and might have as much incentive as Russia to do the hacking. Whomever hacked what, I think we can agree that WikiLeaks was handed some valuable information that will prove beneficial to the public and historians, and that the DNC's complete disdain of Bernie Sanders has been exposed. That's why I say that if Clinton loses this election, the Democratic party is going to have a little civil war because the leftists and centrists of (and controlling) the party are itching for a fight to redirect the future of the party.

 

You can find plenty of people who support the statements on NATO and nukes. Look at the little guy Trump supporter. Does he want to hear that the U.S. could be obligated to go to war over some European or semi-European countries he doesn't care about? No. What does resonate with him is the idea of member states not paying their fair share. He also agrees with Trump's isolationism, and sees NATO is just another instrument for the U.S. to act as the world's policeman. And let's say we do pull out of NATO. Does Russia then ride in and take all of Europe? That seems unlikely. As for the nukes, the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a dated artifact along the same lines, and is flaunted at will. India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nukes. We regard nuclear capability as a "red line" for Iran while allowing Israel to pretend like it doesn't have hundreds of them. I believe the actual comment you're referring to was about proliferation, specifically about whether South Korea and Japan should have the ability to produce nukes. The U.S. has a policy of not allowing Japan to have nuclear weapons. Japan has gone along with that but could amend their Constitution to allow themselves a real military and the like. It is also said that Japan could rapidly develop a nuclear weapon if it chose to. It comes back to the U.S. being the world's policeman and taking on everyone's problems. Japan and South Korea are U.S. allies that are meant to counteract China's sphere of influence. Would it be so bad to make Japan pay for their own defense and host their own nuclear weapons capability, especially if they chose this route themselves (to expel unpopular U.S. bases)? Would it cause a nuclear war with China? Unlikely. North Korea is a more uncertain problem, but they already have nuclear weapons that could hit at least South Korea. We already have MAD deterrents against catastrophic action by NK, although we are entirely ineffective stop them from downing a few ships or shelling a few islands.

 

About the refusal to accept democracy bit. "Accept the result with a phone call" style democracy died back in November 2000. The losing candidate will pursue as many recounts as fervently as possible. This may have been the ultimate politically incorrect comment by Trump, but it reflects the reality that the stakes are too high to back down. Part of Trump's argument was also that he can't accept a result in advance because their might be election irregularities. This is a pretty well debunked argument, but fraud can occur and I was amazed at how easy it was for me to get my voting card. Every bit of information required for me to vote has either been stolen from me in the past, or can probably be found in some hacked database somewhere.

 

At the end of the day, "suitable" really means "in reasonably good health" (and he may not be) and meeting the requirements outlined in the Constitution. A 35+ year old natural-born citizen that has been a resident for at least 14 years.

 

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily believe everything written above. Maybe it was all a joke.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They look at Trump with his partially self-financed campaign (seen as a major positive, since he "can't be bought")

So they do not understand the basics of a liberal democracy based on individualism/objectivism like USA ? :P

 

They refuse the very principle of that state notion ("Personal interest above all, and yes I can be bought if this is coherent with my interests, why not? It's my freedom above all") on which USA are build?

 

It's why when I see that type of neocon-republicans (?) I think they dream about some selfless romantic hero protecting their selfish interests.....kind of Fascism if you ask me :D

They would love dictator-like populist characters, people nightmarish false heroes.....

 

"can't be bought" argument is really awkward in a country where "everything has a price and it's right to be so, this is the highest form of freedom".

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...