US Presidential Candidates

PeterZ wrote:Its not a plague on both your houses, it is a plague on the One House. The elite/donors jumped into joint opposition of Trump. The Kochs and Soros fought on the same side in this election just as ALL the Bushes supported Hillary. If Trump sends the AG after the pay for play allegation of the Clinton Foundation, it will prune back the Uni-Party. Perhaps we can finally establish access for true alternative parties.

Face the facts, the democrats have been captured more completely by the elites. Destroy the mechanisms they use to control that party and perhaps, you can rely on the party to support the will of its members rather than the whims of the elite donors.

Thank you for making my point about polarized discussion. If you truly believe that only one party has faults, and the other is blameless, there's no place for the conversation to go. On the other hand, if you're willing to discuss the interests that hedge their bets by donating to both parties, or who funds various Super PACs that are not officially tied to one party but campaign like they are, we can go somewhere.

dscott8 wrote:Thank you for making my point about polarized discussion. If you truly believe that only one party has faults, and the other is blameless, there's no place for the conversation to go. On the other hand, if you're willing to discuss the interests that hedge their bets by donating to both parties, or who funds various Super PACs that are not officially tied to one party but campaign like they are, we can go somewhere.

Please read what I wrote. I did not say that only one party had issues. My post already assumes that Republican voters are willing to take drastic measures to vote out the elites/establishment. We voted for a crass, loudmouth populist and rejected the establishment in our party for Heaven's sake! That the Democrat party failed to nominate Sanders because Wasserman-Schultz cheated for Clinton against Sanders supports my contention. The rank and file Democrat does not embrace the elites, but the Party leadership does.

We need to open the electoral process to true debate and a competition of ideas. To do that we have to destroy the mechanisms whereby politicians can easily grow rich by selling influence. The Clinton Foundation does just that. Our campaign finance laws already allow donors to contribute to a politicians personal wealth through campaign donations within some limits. Allowing the this Foundation and similar ones in the future to make it simpler for politicians to grow wealthy by selling influence is madness.

I am not saying democrats are immoral because Clinton is a corrupt politician. Not all that voted for her faced an easy choice, just as not all that voted for Trump had it easy. I am simply urging that the mechanisms she is using to facilitate her corruption be eliminated.

I would recommend that Presidential debates be open to all candidates that are on the ballots of all 50 states. If Trump can use earned media to win the election, enabling alternative party candidates access to more earned media is a good place to start. Heck, I am all for having an alternative party debate during the primaries. The Rs and Ds have theirs, give debates to all the others during the primaries. Lowering the barriers to entry for alternative parties can't help but keep the principle parties honest.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:There may be.... some... room for debate in whether Trump is himself a racist.

There is no room for debate whatsoever that he had no reservations taking deliberate advantage of racism for his personal benefit this entire campaign.


And frankly, I find little morally to pick between those two things.

There is always room for debate.

Statement was slightly hyperbolic. Yes, there is always space to debate almost anything if you want to be strictly literal. There is room to debate the flatness of the earth or the wetness of water.

But reasonable room for debate? No.

Specifically to your charge, please provide some examples.

Example one... he *really* liked to retweet white supremacists. And not one or two "oopsies" either. Not 10 or 20 "oopsies". Not even 50 "oopsies".


http://fortune.com/donald-trump-white-s ... -genocide/


And that was just the count back in July.

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action” .... what do you call 75 times?

The examples I can think of are not as clear cut as you assert.

Mexican Judge? No he was an American judge born in Indiana with apparent La Raza ties. Does that disqualify him for judging Trump's case? It may or may not depending on whether he can divorce his personal beliefs from the merits of the case. Given the extreme racist statements from la Raza, the answer to this question isn't clear cut. Did Trump misspeak, certainly.

On what grounds do you call his statement "misspeaking"? It sounded pretty damn clear and in line with his previous campaign behavior to me. And when he was challenged on it later he doubled down. He did not say "oh sorry I misspoke".

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/ ... pper-lead/

Ban on immigration from places where immigrants can't be vetted:

And Stop.

Once again, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, Trump regularly called on a BLANKET BAN ON MUSLIM IMMIGRATION. That's the definition of racism.

Yes, he also backpedaled and added conditions. But then he ALSO Back - Back pedaled and kept calling for the blanket ban as well.

One day he would be on some interview saying "oh no, what I meant to say was...." then the next day he's be in front of some whipped up mob yelling about keeping the Muslims out again.


FFS, this is still up on his own freaking website. This is not some off the cuff mis-speak this is a crafted freaking press release.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-rele ... mmigration

"​DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on"

PeterZ wrote:So true. I would add that if there was a theme to this election, it was against corruption as well as the re-assertion of nationalist goals

If Trump stays true to form you're about to find out what real kleptocrat-style corruption is like...

smr wrote:Amen to the sediment that PC is dead! If Clinton had not setup and illegal email server which was hacked by multiple governments, she would be Madame President. A person can blame Russia, the FBI, and/or illegal hackers but the facts are she created an illegal email server to hide what she was doing.

Illegal server? Maybe the FBI should be notified?

Oh wait...

And cite that it was hacked by multiple governments? (as opposed to speculation that it could have been hacked, which was as far as Comey got.)

PeterZ wrote:There is always room for debate.

Specifically to your charge, please provide some examples. The examples I can think of are not as clear cut as you assert.

Mexican Judge? No he was an American judge born in Indiana with apparent La Raza ties. Does that disqualify him for judging Trump's case? It may or may not depending on whether he can divorce his personal beliefs from the merits of the case. Given the extreme racist statements from la Raza, the answer to this question isn't clear cut. Did Trump misspeak, certainly. He oversimplified his description of the Judge inaccurately. Is that prima facie racism? No it isn't.

Trump described him as "Mexican". And the "La Raza" in he was tied to is not the one you're probably thinking of.

Ironically, said judge actually made some rulings in Trump's favor (most prominently agreeing to postpone the trial until after the election) both before and after Trump's attack on him.

Eyal,
If the organization the judge belonged to was something more benign than the more renowned La Raza, does that not argue for making assumptions based on affiliation and NOT race? Also, how often do people use sloppy language. Referring to someone of Mexican decent as Mexican is inaccurate, but is it by definition racist?

I maintain that the charge of racism is unproven.

As for your concern with regards to Trump's kleptocratic tendencies, pleas help me be vigilant. I am sure more eyes will follow his every move than would have followed Clinton. The forces of kleptocracy face a more inhospitable environment now than it would have under Clinton.

Gcomeau,

He isn't King. If he truly does want initiate an anti Muslim assault, you, me and millions of Americans will support court or legislative action to stop him. Popular support is the only thing stemming his immediate impeachment. Lord knows he has very little support in Congress. Most of those folks owe their office to donors that already hate Trump.

If you are right and Trump will cater to those of his base that are truly racist, he will be impeached in a heartbeat. Too many that voted for him will use the punishment of his bad example to reign in executive authority.

PeterZ wrote:Gcomeau,

He isn't King. If he truly does want initiate an anti Muslim assault, you, me and millions of Americans will support court or legislative action to stop him. Popular support is the only thing stemming his immediate impeachment. Lord knows he has very little support in Congress. Most of those folks owe their office to donors that already hate Trump.

If you are right and Trump will cater to those of his base that are truly racist, he will be impeached in a heartbeat. Too many that voted for him will use the punishment of his bad example to reign in executive authority.

So since you did not attempt to rebut any detail of what I just wrote and have now shifted to a "well... there's only so much damage he could do anyway" mode of argument is that now a concession that he did very obviously systematically stoke racism throughout his campaign whether you want to try debating he himself is actually personally holding those racist views or not?

gcomeau wrote:So since you did not attempt to rebut any detail of what I just wrote and have now shifted to a "well... there's only so much damage he could do anyway" mode of argument is that now a concession that he did very obviously systematically stoke racism throughout his campaign whether you want to try debating he himself is actually personally holding those racist views or not?

In prior post I have already addressed what I see as ambiguity in the words you choose to accept as indisputably racist. Do I assert that he is NOT racist? No. I simply do not assert that he IS racist given the things he has said and done.

That charge to me is similar to the entire PC culture, it exists simply to shut people up. I don't believe Trump is racist or fanned racism in his campaign. I believe many on the left will frame anything Trump does in that way. That framing is not performed to better understand what is happening, but to delegitimize everything those you disagree with are doing.

Have at it, my friend. I choose not to participate.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:So since you did not attempt to rebut any detail of what I just wrote and have now shifted to a "well... there's only so much damage he could do anyway" mode of argument is that now a concession that he did very obviously systematically stoke racism throughout his campaign whether you want to try debating he himself is actually personally holding those racist views or not?

In prior post I have already addressed what I see as ambiguity in the words you choose to accept as indisputably racist.

And I addressed your response. You attempted to claim "misspeaking" when there is no evidence he misspoke and when he himself doubled down on what he said when confronted with it in interview afterwards. You don't just get to claim he meant something else when HE doesn't say he meant something else.

And you have ignored his DOZENS of retweets of white supremacists all through the campaign. And you have ignored that he did not just call for limiting immigration from conflict zones but for banning *all Muslim immigration* on repeated occasions... and that call still remains posted even on his own website in a prepared press release not some off the cuff inelegantly phrased remark.

Do I assert that he is NOT racist, no. I simply do not assert that he IS racist.

To repeat, the point of contention is that *whether or not he is personally racist himself* there is no reasonable argument to be made against the fact that he consistently and systematically stoked racism during his campaign

PeterZ wrote:
Its not a plague on both your houses, it is a plague on the One House. The elite/donors jumped into joint opposition of Trump. The Kochs and Soros fought on the same side in this election just as ALL the Bushes supported Hillary. If Trump sends the AG after the pay for play allegation of the Clinton Foundation, it will prune back the Uni-Party. Perhaps we can finally establish access for true alternative parties.

Face the facts, the democrats have been captured more completely by the elites. Destroy the mechanisms they use to control that party and perhaps, you can rely on the party to support the will of its members rather than the whims of the elite donors.

The US democrats are BAD, no doubt there, the problem is, the republicans are WORSE.
MUCH worse even.

That you don´t understand just how bad Trump´s constant litany of lies and hatespeech is, that just makes you one of the real losers in this election.