Donald Trump

I think a case can be made that the American political process is, and has always been, rigged in favor of elites. For example, gerrymandering is a hallowed electoral practice, and Republicans in recent years have systematically used it to ensure that elections are stacked in their favor. . The electoral college, coupled with the "winner take all" principle, rigs things in favor of the two major parties. Republicans have also been creative in adopting various voter suppression tactics under the guise of preventing voter fraud: Reducing the number of polling places in minority communities, changing polling hours, and eliminating early voting opportunities, in order to create long polling lines and wear down potential voters.

But the notion that the pollsters skew their samples to get the results they want is simply not true. If they did, they'd soon be out of business. This is conspiracy theorizing at its most ignorant extreme. The major polling operations like Gallup and Harris have excellent records and reputations for scientific polling. Trump balleyhooed the polls when he was winning in the primaries. Rassmussen has consistently been an outlier in favoring Trump in 2016 and other national elections, and the bias is clearly in a Republican direction. This, however, is probably not because of any conscious partisan bias but because they use a methodology that tends to favor people who are easier to reach, who tend to be Republicans. Polls are conducted by robo-dialing within a 4-hour window, the person who answers the phone (even a child) is sampled, and phones that are not answered are not called back. This is a violation of strict randomness, with resulting sampling inaccuracies. The other major poll that tends to favor Trump is the USC/LA Times "Daybreak" tracking poll. A tracking poll selects a sample at the outset and keeps coming back to the same group throughout the pre-election period. If the initial sample was predisposed to favor Trump at the time it was selected, as would be true when he was riding high, that bias might remain. The Daybreak poll also differs from the others in using a ranking system of zero to 100 instead of "yes" or "no" questions, and during post-processing, responses are weighted to match demographic characteristics on the basis of 2012 election voting. Which polling methodologies are more accurate remains to be seen for 2016, but the idea that they're deliberately "rigged" in a partisan manner has no merit.

 

That's not what I meant when I said Trump supporters are MAD!

 

Oh I believe he knows that the Attorney General is the one who would appoint the special prosecutor. And I believe he knows that his AG will come to the same conclusion as the lawyers and FBI agents who came to a unanimous decision after investigating the facts of the case against Clinton--that she should be prosecuted.

 

Yes it is rigged on both sides. Well, really there's only one side: the side of the wealthy elite, of which Trump and Clinton are both members. Grass roots candidates don't really stand a chance. No true progressives really stand a chance.

 

Yes, and this is what Trump is exploiting. Every dictator rises to power exploiting the people's anger. People's anger can result in a good revolution as well---The American Revolution, or The People's Revolution of the Philippines that put the widow Aquino in power.

But consider this, the revolutions that ended on a positive note were not putting tough, and supposedly strong, people into power. Just think about that.

I thank you, and I support your having your opinions as well. But just as you are telling everyone to research and find out for yourself----I am asking you to do the same. If I am minterpreting the Trump phenomena, then I must be wrong. If you want to challenge me, then point out a dictator that fits Clinton's profile. Or, to make it easier, tell me how dictators in modern times are different from Trump. Now the umbrella of political ideology does not count---because they come out of all kinds of political ideologies and push both far left and far right ideologies----and Trump is pushing a pretty far right one.

I agreed with that----but do you see the big difference between the ducks and the blackshirts and brownshirts? The difference is very big. There is also a difference between the ducks and people showing up at polls to intimidate voters. That is actually closer to the Blackshirts and Brownshirts than wearing a duck suit at a rally. The only problem with the duck thing is that Clinton was involved. If she wasn't involved then it would have been simple peaceful activism and nothing more. The Blackshirts and Brownshirts had the main and very key purpose of intimidation, a show of might, and violence. There was nothing peaceful about them. They did not use humor, or metaphor----just fear, intimidation, and violence.

That is true----but why would one only look at right wing conspiracy websites. How about considering Huffington Post, or the Daily Show---neither one are subject to conspiracy theories, and are not necessarily mainstream.

In the same article about voter intimidation at the polling place, there was also a mention that info wars was sending out a call for infowar warriors----for that very same purpose (to show up at polling places). Even if you thought the sources you mentioned were not biased----that alone should make you think.



But what I am talking about is not even using a biased news source------the actual speeches and statements of the politicians are al over the web-------I am simply saying, LOOK AT WHAT THE CANDIDATES THEMSELVES ARE SAYING AND DOING. Their lies, their truths, their ideas, what they themselves are showing the world. You don't need some biased website or news source. But you do need to be aware of history.

Suspend your party biases for a moment and just look at what is happening. There is so much propaganda and misinformation on both sides. But the candidates themselves are showing their colors-----neither one is good---but just look.








P.S. As far as blaming Bush for the Credit Crisis. You can't blame Obama for it---unless you don't understand economics, the implications of a credit crisis, and exactly what Obama and the Federal Reserve has done despite all the obstructionist politicking.

But it is not all of Bush's fault. In fact, there are a lot of administrations before him that had their hand in creating the credit crisis----including Bill Clinton. We could even go all the way back to Reagan and his trickle down economics to point to some major socio-economic factors. Repealing the Glass-Steagall Act was a very big cause of what happened. And Enron was the big red flag that everyone ignored.

There were several long term cycles in the financial markets that played a role as well. We could point to the Federal Reserve and the fact that they probably kept interest rates too low too long, but again, they were, on the one hand, stuck between a rock and a hard place, and on the other, subject to the same long term cycles. They misjudged the strength that technology was having on the US economy, and because it was an unprecedented strength, they misunderstood it until it was too late.

There was the almost 2 decades of economic growth that was even stronger than the American people themselves knew---especially after the crash of the dot.com market in 2000. But the strength of the economy enabled Americans to take on far too much debt, and to become very easygoing about it. It is because of this debt that many Americans are responsible for it, not the one's who were duped into taking on more debt than they should have, not the one's who were realistic about how much debt they could handle, but those who weren't very realistic about debt, those who were irresponsible, those who took advantage of the system, or gambled with the debt, and of course there were the many people who turned into loan brokers overnight, worked in boiler rooms, sold cars or anything else really, or that in whatever capacity got people into loans...

And of course there was Wall Street, but if you are going to blame them, you can't forget the investors, not only in America, but the world over who demanded higher returns for debt investments. And demanded higher returns for lower risk.

In other words, there were an awful lot of causes and very many Americans were a part of it. But Bush and his administration played a major part too.

But regardless of what role Bush did play, he made 3 key mistakes that if he had handled differently----would have significantly lowered the severity and the cost of the credit crisis.

In fact, the first one would have stopped it in its tracks: he should have pushed through with the bail outs, and not put it up for a vote. Because the real purpose of the bail outs was psychological, and the markets were posed to rebound on the announcement of the bail outs at the beginning of September 2008 when they were meant to happen. Had the bailouts happened then, even before the American people knew how severe things really were, it would have been a whole different story, we would have spent many billions of dollars less in the bail outs, and the market would have recovered immediately, money would have continued flowing, and so forth. The American people were asked to make a decision on something they knew very little about----the shit didn't hit the fan publicly until after the weekend that the bailouts were voted down----when America woke up to a monday morning where they couldn't even get car loans to buy a car. The bad news came non stop all day every day from that point on.

The second thing was allowing Lehman Brothers to go under. That almost completely knocked out global debt markets, and it killed the 7 day paper markets, which provided very lucrative notes for both investors and the companies issuing them. Geithner tells a different story today trying to deny his culpability----but I had almost front row seats, and it really was an experiment to see what would happen if we let 'the market take care of' a too big to fail institution. That almost resulted in a collapse of the global financial markets. (If the bailouts would have gone through as initially planned----Lehman Brothers wouldn't have been a problem anyway---their stock would have recovered and one of the white knights would have gladly picked it up---their stock had lost so much ground, like the rest of the market because the bail outs got voted out, then Dick Fuld was a dick, and the white knights one by one backed out. I remember that weekend well, and Geithner was their and could have done numerous things to save the deal or save the company.)

Off hand, I forget the 3rd thing----I have preached enough about this I am surprised I can't think of it. But I know what I am talking about here----and if you debate these matters or the economy, I am happy to do it. Be forewarned, I was the one that kept investors in the market in July 2007 when the credit crisis first came to light. I got them out near the top in December 2007. I got them back in at the very bottom in March 2009.

As far as Trump and the economy----just read my post #2636 in this thread (and yes, I mention there that I predicted the crash of the Nikkei in 1990, and their economic woes----as an analyst in Japan I worked with a Japanese trader on identifying market turns---I have identified every major turn and almost every correction (top and bottom) since then. I have taught many people how to do this, and I have never charged anyone. It is always a short term thing though---in other words the bottom is always a matter of a few hours to a few days when the signals take place. The top is more of a matter of a few days to a month. The collapse of the Nikkei was entirely different----I predicted that over a year earlier, and I was very lucky that it happened to be at the level and time I predicted. But it was based on much more than just the charts.)

 

Under a totalitarian dictatorship the rules change. Of course this happens after the old order is largely overthrown. You know, purges and what not. But even when the same structure is maintained for appearances, they follow the commands of the leader.

In the context of everything he has said and done---this is what makes Trump's comments disconcerting. He fits the profile all to well. This is what makes him so scary. If I remember correctly, he said that 'he' would appoint this special prosecutor. Could he actually change our system to do this? I hope not, but I certainly don't want to give him a chance.

I agree with MeAgain, and he probably does not know----he has shown himself to be pretty oblivious to campaign laws----or then again, that may have been an excuse. In any event his career as a businessman, and his campaign have demonstrated time and again that he doesn't really care about rules and the law. Except as it may apply to others.

Never for the opposition.

 

It's how it seems often to me too. But I also think if all progressives would work together they do have a chance. Maybe not to 'win it all' in terms of winning an election this time around or even the next (and the one after that ). But definitely a chance to make a positive impact. They could even create a chance to get a progressive president some time, but I can't blame people for not seeing that chance atm And yes, ideally american democracy should undergo some improvements. It does favor an elite.

 

Traditionally that has been the primary strength of the democrats, they would readily band together to get another democrat elected. While republicans can't stop infighting for as much as an hour, democrats were able to set aside an amazing array of differences to pull for a single, pivotal candidate.

However, after the election, the democrats would head back to their feudal kingdoms and see to their own needs. This spilled out onto the capital floor regularly as democrats fought everyone for federal gimme dollars to send back to their districts. Which is why we have so many useless, redundant military bases all over the US.

That's not to say that republicans aren't doing the same for their districts, they just do it differently. Less publically it seems. But 24/7 the republicans fight each other. If they could circle the wagons like democrats, they'd be the dominant political force in the US. Most of the democrat successes over the last 2 decades have come primarily from republican failures. Look how McCain and Romney handed the top seat to Obama on a platter. Obama was a rookie who SHOULD have been defeated by Hillary in the primaries.

THAT is where things started to change for democrats as they seemed to be adopting the republican model. Since when do democrats attack each other? Since when does a democrat use the race card on anyone BUT a republican? The fracturing is both incredible and unsettling. And just like the republicans who shat upon Goldwater, the "Never Trump" republicans are already starting to feel their careers in retreat. NONE of the republicans who stabbed Goldwater in the back built much of a career.

This shift by the democrats is exactly why we have Trump. He was for all intents and purposes, a democrat. Then he saw the writing on the wall. People like him, wealthy blowhards, were the target for a lot of democratic ire and if he wanted to keep his lifestyle, he'd have to go on the offensive. You have to admit, switching to the republicans must have been pretty offensive to all of Trump's democrat "friends". It's also pretty clear that Trump doesn't have a lot of republican friends either.

Perhaps that's his appeal. I certainly don't think either party gives a flying crap about my well being. I was ready for an outsider just to shake up the house. It's as close as we can get without full anarchy. Since Bernie was a wash, Trump is all that's left for upsetting the status quo Washington dynasties. Seems like after so long we'd be tired of "ruling families" in America.

 

This is you projecting a totalitarian dictatorship for the sake of your argument. It has no basis in fact.

Yes, he said he would appoint a special prosecutor. You believe that this is evidence that he would not go through his Attorney General because of the way he worded his statement. This is more projection on your part. You're hoping to convince readers that a president can change any or all laws once he is in office.

And actually, if you care to review the Hillary Clinton thread, you will find that she is the one who has demonstrated a careless and willing disregard for the law.

 

I am merely stating what makes Trump so scary. If I am so wrong, then it should be easy to respond to my challenges.

In particular, since you like to show how much worse Clinton is than Trump, why don't you tell me how she fits the profile of all the dictators, or even how she fits the profile of even one dictator, in terms of what she says, or her persona.

 

You are the one who has projected what Trump will do concerning Clinton's illegal activity. You have conjectured that he will immediately--on his own--appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her illegal activities. You assume that he will not act through his Attorney General. Did you know that George Stephanopoulos once asked Obama if he was going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Bush? I swear to god that those were the words he used. Do you consider George Stephanopoulos a closet advocate for totalitarian dictatorship?

Clinton decided to ignore her legal obligations under the U.S. Code concerning the handling of sensitive material. She determined what evidence she would turn over to the FBI. Her aides and lawyer were given side-deals and immunity, and their laptops were destroyed. She allowed a computer specialist to delete her emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them, and the guy was then given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account? What does this indicate to you about Clinton's regard for the law? What does it indicate to you about her propensity to do things her way, the law be damned? Kind of dictator-like, huh? Or do you speculate that she will straighten up and fly right if she becomes president?

And since you are bent on trying to put Clinton in a good light, perhaps you can explain this:

Saudi Arabia has engaged in war crimes, and the United States is aiding and abetting them by providing the Saudis with military assistance. In September 2015, Saudi aircraft killed 135 wedding celebrants in Yemen. The air strikes have killed 2,800 civilians, including 500 children. Human Rights Watch charges that these bombings “have indiscriminately killed and injured civilians.”

The Saudis contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. In 2011, the year after the State Department had documented myriad serious human rights violations by Saudi Arabia, Hillary oversaw a $29 billion sale of advanced fighter jets to the Saudis, declaring it was in our national interest. The deal was “a top priority” for Hillary, according to Andrew Shapiro, an assistant secretary of state. Two months before the deal was clinched, Boeing, manufacturer of one of the fighter jets the Saudis sought to acquire, contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Yeah, she'll make a swell president.

 

Hillary fits the profile of conventional corruption and business as usual. Trump is a change agent of the worst sort; a genuine American Fascist bull in the proverbial china shop of U.S.constitutionalism.. Populism+Nativism+Nationalism+Scapegoating+leadership Principle+Authoritarianism=Fascism. He fits the Fascist profile in all particulars, and if we turn our constitutional system over to such a man, we'll never get it back again!
By challenging the peaceful transfer of power with his phony "rigged election" claims, Trump is setting the stage for his new movement.

 

Chicken little...the sky is falling! I don't see Trump destroying the U.S. at all. He is responding to the needs of the country at this time in history. We the american people see what he sees and we are asking him to fix broken policies. People who build bombs and blow people up are not welcome here. People who cut off the heads of other people are not welcome here. We see the need for securing our borders and a president to do just that is not a tyrant; he is a patriot.

hillary clinton has proven her disdain and contempt for people and the rule of law for as long as I can remember. If you believe what she says, you are a fool because she lies about everything! She just said, "...she has a public and a private opinion." She tells we the people one thing and then says something entirely different to the wall street crowd. How can you possibly support that???

Trump is not a tyrant, He is not going to be a hitler and murder millions of people. I believe he will tighten up our borders, but I'm not sure how many people he will be able to deport...we'll see. Remember, the people who are here illegally and stand to be deported, came here ILLEGALLY!!!

There are so many things that need to be fixed and at least Trump is talking about addressing these isssues.

 

I am not predicting, or projecting (I don't use this word in this manner myself), that Trump will actually do that. If he tried I hope that we have safeguards in place that would prevent that. But I think it is very dangerous for us to give him the chance.

What I am saying is that his comments within the context of everything he has said and done, and the persona he displays, just adds to the very obvious profile he demonstrates of just about every dictator of the Modern world. I think that Americans would like to think that if Hitler tried to rise to power here in the US, we would not elect him (and if he did come to power, hopefully our democracy is strong enough to stop him). But here we are with near half the country supporting a Hitler-like character (or Stalin-like, or Amin-like, or Mussolini-like, or anyone else---take your pick) and being that we are here, if he was elected, how sure could we be that the system will remain intact, or that we will be smart enough to stop him before it is too late.

I am not making any assumptions, nor am I making predictions----but I am sounding the alarm to what we are doing here, and what possible implications are.

We already went over this in the Clinton thread. I am not trying to state that she is an angel. But I am stating that given the two choices, she is far safer than Trump. And if we want to only question ethics and integrity, that even if electing her is like stepping on a piece of dog crap, Trump is like stepping into a very large pile of very fresh and smelly human feces. If you can't see that, then you don't know Trump very well.

I am not talking about 'kind of dictator-like.' I am talking about a persona fitting a whole profile as in Trump. Nixon erased tapes after being subpoenaed, but he wasn't a dictator. He might have been one of the closest things we came to a dictator, and he certainly had a profile closer to a dictator than Clinton, but nonetheless he wasn't a dictator. He was also far more presidential then Trump.

 

Your post is a repeat of your projection concerning a Trump presidency. It is not based on fact.

However, concerning this:

Saudi Arabia has engaged in war crimes, and the United States is aiding and abetting them by providing the Saudis with military assistance. In September 2015, Saudi aircraft killed 135 wedding celebrants in Yemen. The air strikes have killed 2,800 civilians, including 500 children. Human Rights Watch charges that these bombings “have indiscriminately killed and injured civilians.”

The Saudis contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. In 2011, the year after the State Department had documented myriad serious human rights violations by Saudi Arabia, Hillary oversaw a $29 billion sale of advanced fighter jets to the Saudis, declaring it was in our national interest. The deal was “a top priority” for Hillary, according to Andrew Shapiro, an assistant secretary of state. Two months before the deal was clinched, Boeing, manufacturer of one of the fighter jets the Saudis sought to acquire, contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation . . .

And this:

Clinton decided to ignore her legal obligations under the U.S. Code concerning the handling of sensitive material. She determined what evidence she would turn over to the FBI. Her aides and lawyer were given side-deals and immunity, and their laptops were destroyed. She allowed a computer specialist to delete her emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them, and the guy was then given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account? What does this indicate to you about Clinton's regard for the law? What does it indicate to you about her propensity to do things her way, the law be damned? Kind of dictator-like, huh? Or do you speculate that she will straighten up and fly right if she becomes president?

​. . . ​which is based on fact, your assessment boils down to: I'm not saying that she's an angel. This is your attempt to soften the truth of these matters.

And you honestly don't see that Clinton is a well-established pile of very fresh and smelly human feces? you're too kind!

 

Yeah, it was so phony that Foval and Creamer just faded away like innocent people do, huh?

 

Yeah, it's called checks and balances . . .