Trump Voters.... why?

[TexasRunner]

Just one point on this -- and by the way, thank you for appreciating my cordiality.

I can understand that there may seem to be a gray area on what constitutes hate speech. You say they do not endorse violence. Okay. But, my point would be this: when someone uses a word like "vile," to choose just one example, when referring to another group, that is pretty emotionally charged language. It's pretty difficult to interpret "vile" in a neutral manner.

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

That one word alone meets at least two of the three, don't you think? I personally cannot imagine having that word applied to me based on my race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or other trait, and not feeling offended and insulted.

I can agree with that if he were specifically referring to all homosexuals.  But this is an example of taking the statement out of context.  He was specifically referring to "the activists"- not the entirety of homosexuality.  I think most on this forum would agree that the far fringe activists (to which I believe he was referring) of pretty much any debate are vile.  Name any topic- abortion, guns, homosexuality, religion and even economics and the farthest activists on each side would probably be considered 'vile' by a majority of the middle. 

Also, we don't hear the full discussion.  The context could have naturally made it hate speech or not IMO-  but selectively grabbing quotes and taking them out of context by insinuating they were applied to everybody is wrong.

"Those who understand the homosexual community—the activists—they're very aggressive, they're—everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They're intolerant, they're hateful, vile, they're spiteful. .... To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation."
— Tony Perkins, Speaking to the Oak Initiative Summit, April 2011

(edit for typo)

[cliffhanger]

So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.

OMG. Why are you so sanctimonious about his donation? You don't know how the church will use that money. Why are you so focused on the theoretical recipients' demographics?  You could extend your logic and say that any donation made inside the United State is bad, because there are people outside the US suffering more than the poorest citizen here.

Yokan, every single aspect of a presidential nominee's words and actions is calculated. This is no mainstream church. I think it is worth noting that he could have donated to the state's relief association -- as the governor of Louisiana suggested -- but he chose to donate to a fringe church. A fringe church whose members very closely correspond to a demographic that makes up the majority of his base.

So, you know, you don't need to care about this. But I do. And I think it's worth pointing out that Trump did not donate to the "people of Baton Rouge." He donated to "people of Baton Rouge who want to elect me."

Just wanted to note that this church is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, the second largest Christian denomination in the US. The only reasoning you've produced for fringe views is the interim (temporary) pastor's views on homosexuality. Unless you can find sermons of his where he exposes his views in a front of an accepting congregation, I think you'd be hard pressed to claim this isn't a mainstream church.

I can see we'll constantly disagree on this, but I'd like to bring up the comment that prompted me to use this example. I thought I could use a simple example to show that Trump is capable of doing some good things and people will still hate him for it. I think undecided voters see this constantly, and are more likely to vote Trump over Clinton because of it.

Heh, this entire thread proves the point that most people are incapable of critical thinking.  They pick a side emotionally and then rationalize their way to that position.  At this point, I can not even bother reading posts, just look at usernames because I know what they are going to say no matter what.

[Kris]

So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.

OMG. Why are you so sanctimonious about his donation? You don't know how the church will use that money. Why are you so focused on the theoretical recipients' demographics?  You could extend your logic and say that any donation made inside the United State is bad, because there are people outside the US suffering more than the poorest citizen here.

Yokan, every single aspect of a presidential nominee's words and actions is calculated. This is no mainstream church. I think it is worth noting that he could have donated to the state's relief association -- as the governor of Louisiana suggested -- but he chose to donate to a fringe church. A fringe church whose members very closely correspond to a demographic that makes up the majority of his base.

So, you know, you don't need to care about this. But I do. And I think it's worth pointing out that Trump did not donate to the "people of Baton Rouge." He donated to "people of Baton Rouge who want to elect me."

Just wanted to note that this church is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, the second largest Christian denomination in the US. The only reasoning you've produced for fringe views is the interim (temporary) pastor's views on homosexuality. Unless you can find sermons of his where he exposes his views in a front of an accepting congregation, I think you'd be hard pressed to claim this isn't a mainstream church.

I can see we'll constantly disagree on this, but I'd like to bring up the comment that prompted me to use this example. I thought I could use a simple example to show that Trump is capable of doing some good things and people will still hate him for it. I think undecided voters see this constantly, and are more likely to vote Trump over Clinton because of it.

Heh, this entire thread proves the point that most people are incapable of critical thinking.  They pick a side emotionally and then rationalize their way to that position.  At this point, I can not even bother reading posts, just look at usernames because I know what they are going to say no matter what.

No, if you go back and read what I posted, you will see that I also pointed out that the pastor before him -- who was not an interim pastor, and served that church for many years -- is also very much cut from this same cloth, and also has strong ties to the FRC.

And yes, I would argue that this church has demonstrated itself to be on the fringes of the Southern Baptist Convention, as well.

[Yokan]

So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.

OMG. Why are you so sanctimonious about his donation? You don't know how the church will use that money. Why are you so focused on the theoretical recipients' demographics?  You could extend your logic and say that any donation made inside the United State is bad, because there are people outside the US suffering more than the poorest citizen here.

Yokan, every single aspect of a presidential nominee's words and actions is calculated. This is no mainstream church. I think it is worth noting that he could have donated to the state's relief association -- as the governor of Louisiana suggested -- but he chose to donate to a fringe church. A fringe church whose members very closely correspond to a demographic that makes up the majority of his base.

So, you know, you don't need to care about this. But I do. And I think it's worth pointing out that Trump did not donate to the "people of Baton Rouge." He donated to "people of Baton Rouge who want to elect me."

Fair enough. I guess the point I've been trying to poorly articulate is every politician has sociopath tendencies. I would include the Clintons, Bernie, Trump, the Bushs, and even Gary Johnson/The Pauls. I'm under the presumption that none of what they say is sincere. Is it really worth analyzing their intent? Of course you may come to the conclusion that it is worth it. That's fine and it may even be valid, even though I disagree.

I'm sorry. This is a ridiculous, unfounded statement, and even if you were trained in diagnosing sociopaths -- which I'm guessing you are not -- there is no way that you could possibly have "diagnosed" every politician.

So, given that, the rest of your point just doesn't seem to make much sense. I personally think it is worth paying attention to the actions of politicians, yes.

I never used the word "Diagnose" nor did I claim to clinically review every politician. I just said they had tendencies/traits. Maybe I should not have said "every politician," but regardless you can you argue that the traits below are beneficial to a successful politician. Also I wasn't saying we shouldn't pay attention to the actions of politicians, I'm questioning whether it's worth trying to analyze the intent of their actions.

========================================

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

[Kris]

So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.

OMG. Why are you so sanctimonious about his donation? You don't know how the church will use that money. Why are you so focused on the theoretical recipients' demographics?  You could extend your logic and say that any donation made inside the United State is bad, because there are people outside the US suffering more than the poorest citizen here.

Yokan, every single aspect of a presidential nominee's words and actions is calculated. This is no mainstream church. I think it is worth noting that he could have donated to the state's relief association -- as the governor of Louisiana suggested -- but he chose to donate to a fringe church. A fringe church whose members very closely correspond to a demographic that makes up the majority of his base.

So, you know, you don't need to care about this. But I do. And I think it's worth pointing out that Trump did not donate to the "people of Baton Rouge." He donated to "people of Baton Rouge who want to elect me."

Fair enough. I guess the point I've been trying to poorly articulate is every politician has sociopath tendencies. I would include the Clintons, Bernie, Trump, the Bushs, and even Gary Johnson/The Pauls. I'm under the presumption that none of what they say is sincere. Is it really worth analyzing their intent? Of course you may come to the conclusion that it is worth it. That's fine and it may even be valid, even though I disagree.

I'm sorry. This is a ridiculous, unfounded statement, and even if you were trained in diagnosing sociopaths -- which I'm guessing you are not -- there is no way that you could possibly have "diagnosed" every politician.

So, given that, the rest of your point just doesn't seem to make much sense. I personally think it is worth paying attention to the actions of politicians, yes.

I never used the word "Diagnose" nor did I claim to clinically review every politician. I just said they had tendencies/traits. Maybe I should not have said "every politician," but regardless you can you argue that the traits below are beneficial to a successful politician. Also I wasn't saying we shouldn't pay attention to the actions of politicians, I'm questioning whether it's worth trying to analyze the intent of their actions.

========================================

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Oh, come on, Yokan. Your backtracking is disengenuous. And your post is completely contradictory. The very list that you copied and pasted here is full of trying to analyze the intent of politicians, and then you question whether the thing that you just did is worth it.

[Glenstache]

On a different topic, trying to foist the Obama birther stuff onto Clinton was pretty hilarious. It is also additional evidence that Trump has no respect whatsoever for the electorate.

[Yokan]

So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.

OMG. Why are you so sanctimonious about his donation? You don't know how the church will use that money. Why are you so focused on the theoretical recipients' demographics?  You could extend your logic and say that any donation made inside the United State is bad, because there are people outside the US suffering more than the poorest citizen here.

Yokan, every single aspect of a presidential nominee's words and actions is calculated. This is no mainstream church. I think it is worth noting that he could have donated to the state's relief association -- as the governor of Louisiana suggested -- but he chose to donate to a fringe church. A fringe church whose members very closely correspond to a demographic that makes up the majority of his base.

So, you know, you don't need to care about this. But I do. And I think it's worth pointing out that Trump did not donate to the "people of Baton Rouge." He donated to "people of Baton Rouge who want to elect me."

Fair enough. I guess the point I've been trying to poorly articulate is every politician has sociopath tendencies. I would include the Clintons, Bernie, Trump, the Bushs, and even Gary Johnson/The Pauls. I'm under the presumption that none of what they say is sincere. Is it really worth analyzing their intent? Of course you may come to the conclusion that it is worth it. That's fine and it may even be valid, even though I disagree.

I'm sorry. This is a ridiculous, unfounded statement, and even if you were trained in diagnosing sociopaths -- which I'm guessing you are not -- there is no way that you could possibly have "diagnosed" every politician.

So, given that, the rest of your point just doesn't seem to make much sense. I personally think it is worth paying attention to the actions of politicians, yes.

I never used the word "Diagnose" nor did I claim to clinically review every politician. I just said they had tendencies/traits. Maybe I should not have said "every politician," but regardless you can you argue that the traits below are beneficial to a successful politician. Also I wasn't saying we shouldn't pay attention to the actions of politicians, I'm questioning whether it's worth trying to analyze the intent of their actions.

========================================

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Oh, come on, Yokan. Your backtracking is disengenuous. And your post is completely contradictory. The very list that you copied and pasted here is full of trying to analyze the intent of politicians, and then you question whether the thing that you just did is worth it.

I wasn't trying to be disingenuous. We're all playing armchair psychologists whether you like to admit it or not, and you're right it isn't worth it. Mainly I was trying to get you to convince me why I should believe any of them are sincere, but I just think what we're all doing here is a big waste of time. I was trying to understand if there was any value in analyzing their intents. You've demonstrated that there isn't. Thanks.

[TexasRunner]

We're all playing armchair psychologists whether you like to admit it or not, and you're right it isn't worth it.

But its the internet dammit!  We have to argue!  This totally has value!!!

[Yokan]

We're all playing armchair psychologists whether you like to admit it or not, and you're right it isn't worth it.

But its the internet dammit!  We have to argue!  This totally has value!!!

No joke. I was typing a lengthy serious response, thought of this comic and thought, "What am I doing?" lol

[Kris]

So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.

OMG. Why are you so sanctimonious about his donation? You don't know how the church will use that money. Why are you so focused on the theoretical recipients' demographics?  You could extend your logic and say that any donation made inside the United State is bad, because there are people outside the US suffering more than the poorest citizen here.

Yokan, every single aspect of a presidential nominee's words and actions is calculated. This is no mainstream church. I think it is worth noting that he could have donated to the state's relief association -- as the governor of Louisiana suggested -- but he chose to donate to a fringe church. A fringe church whose members very closely correspond to a demographic that makes up the majority of his base.

So, you know, you don't need to care about this. But I do. And I think it's worth pointing out that Trump did not donate to the "people of Baton Rouge." He donated to "people of Baton Rouge who want to elect me."

Fair enough. I guess the point I've been trying to poorly articulate is every politician has sociopath tendencies. I would include the Clintons, Bernie, Trump, the Bushs, and even Gary Johnson/The Pauls. I'm under the presumption that none of what they say is sincere. Is it really worth analyzing their intent? Of course you may come to the conclusion that it is worth it. That's fine and it may even be valid, even though I disagree.

I'm sorry. This is a ridiculous, unfounded statement, and even if you were trained in diagnosing sociopaths -- which I'm guessing you are not -- there is no way that you could possibly have "diagnosed" every politician.

So, given that, the rest of your point just doesn't seem to make much sense. I personally think it is worth paying attention to the actions of politicians, yes.

I never used the word "Diagnose" nor did I claim to clinically review every politician. I just said they had tendencies/traits. Maybe I should not have said "every politician," but regardless you can you argue that the traits below are beneficial to a successful politician. Also I wasn't saying we shouldn't pay attention to the actions of politicians, I'm questioning whether it's worth trying to analyze the intent of their actions.

========================================

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Oh, come on, Yokan. Your backtracking is disengenuous. And your post is completely contradictory. The very list that you copied and pasted here is full of trying to analyze the intent of politicians, and then you question whether the thing that you just did is worth it.

I wasn't trying to be disingenuous. We're all playing armchair psychologists whether you like to admit it or not, and you're right it isn't worth it. Mainly I was trying to get you to convince me why I should believe any of them are sincere, but I just think what we're all doing here is a big waste of time. I was trying to understand if there was any value in analyzing their intents. You've demonstrated that there isn't. Thanks.

Okay. It's strange, though. I literally had no idea that this was an objective of yours in this conversation. Eh.

[Yokan]

So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.

OMG. Why are you so sanctimonious about his donation? You don't know how the church will use that money. Why are you so focused on the theoretical recipients' demographics?  You could extend your logic and say that any donation made inside the United State is bad, because there are people outside the US suffering more than the poorest citizen here.

Yokan, every single aspect of a presidential nominee's words and actions is calculated. This is no mainstream church. I think it is worth noting that he could have donated to the state's relief association -- as the governor of Louisiana suggested -- but he chose to donate to a fringe church. A fringe church whose members very closely correspond to a demographic that makes up the majority of his base.

So, you know, you don't need to care about this. But I do. And I think it's worth pointing out that Trump did not donate to the "people of Baton Rouge." He donated to "people of Baton Rouge who want to elect me."

Fair enough. I guess the point I've been trying to poorly articulate is every politician has sociopath tendencies. I would include the Clintons, Bernie, Trump, the Bushs, and even Gary Johnson/The Pauls. I'm under the presumption that none of what they say is sincere. Is it really worth analyzing their intent? Of course you may come to the conclusion that it is worth it. That's fine and it may even be valid, even though I disagree.

I'm sorry. This is a ridiculous, unfounded statement, and even if you were trained in diagnosing sociopaths -- which I'm guessing you are not -- there is no way that you could possibly have "diagnosed" every politician.

So, given that, the rest of your point just doesn't seem to make much sense. I personally think it is worth paying attention to the actions of politicians, yes.

I never used the word "Diagnose" nor did I claim to clinically review every politician. I just said they had tendencies/traits. Maybe I should not have said "every politician," but regardless you can you argue that the traits below are beneficial to a successful politician. Also I wasn't saying we shouldn't pay attention to the actions of politicians, I'm questioning whether it's worth trying to analyze the intent of their actions.

========================================

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Oh, come on, Yokan. Your backtracking is disengenuous. And your post is completely contradictory. The very list that you copied and pasted here is full of trying to analyze the intent of politicians, and then you question whether the thing that you just did is worth it.

I wasn't trying to be disingenuous. We're all playing armchair psychologists whether you like to admit it or not, and you're right it isn't worth it. Mainly I was trying to get you to convince me why I should believe any of them are sincere, but I just think what we're all doing here is a big waste of time. I was trying to understand if there was any value in analyzing their intents. You've demonstrated that there isn't. Thanks.

Okay. It's strange, though. I literally had no idea that this was an objective of yours in this conversation. Eh.

Next time I'll outright ask. I'm new to this arguing on the internet thing (Probably will not partake again). Cheers.

[iris lily]

So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.

OMG. Why are you so sanctimonious about his donation? You don't know how the church will use that money. Why are you so focused on the theoretical recipients' demographics?  You could extend your logic and say that any donation made inside the United State is bad, because there are people outside the US suffering more than the poorest citizen here.

Im not a Trump,coter, but I agree withh you that drawing this fine a poi to nto the church is strangely,onsessively, silly.

Why sanctimoniou? Probably because of these dog whistles
Church=Bad
Money Church=bad
Trump Money Church=Trifecta of Bad

As an atheist, I am appreciating more as I get older the model of church and local community distributing the monies to the poor. I have personally observed the Feds doing a piss poor job for decades.

[Kris]

So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.

OMG. Why are you so sanctimonious about his donation? You don't know how the church will use that money. Why are you so focused on the theoretical recipients' demographics?  You could extend your logic and say that any donation made inside the United State is bad, because there are people outside the US suffering more than the poorest citizen here.

Im not a Trump,coter, but I agree withh you that drawing this fine a poi to nto the church is strangely,onsessively, silly.

Why sanctimoniou? Probably because of these dog whistles
Church=Bad
Money Church=bad
Trump Money Church=Trifecta of Bad

Nope.

Please do not put words in my mouth. If you go back and look at what I have said, it is far from saying church = bad. If that's all you read, you didn't read very carefully. There are a great many churches that do a great deal of good. I, too, am an atheist, but I volunteer my time at one of those great many churches, serving meals to the homeless.

To say that one church has an especially pernicious effect is not in any way saying all churches are bad. As you see above -- again, if you are reading carefully -- it is not even saying that the Southern Baptist Convention is bad. That is what the word "fringe," which I have applied to this church over and over, means.

[Papa Mustache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQueaSlvjCw

[UncleMark]

because Hillary is sick

[deadlymonkey]

because Hillary is sick

your troll-fu is weak young padewan

[Papa Mustache]

https://www.gq.com/story/176-reasons-donald-trump-shouldnt-be-president-olbermann

That goes along with the video I posted yesterday. I didn't verify each point myself but I figure it is worthwhile as food for thought.

[Jack]

because Hillary is sick

She picked a running mate that's better than she is, so that's an argument in her favor.

[Glenstache]

because Hillary is sick

your troll-fu is weak young padewan

Well, with a post that short and still more words than posts to the forum, that's about what I would expect. They have not yet learned how to truly troll us, by saying things like, "Hillary hates bicycles. Have you ever seen her ride one?" or "She totally doesn't understand IRA conversion ladders!"

[vern]

On a different topic, trying to foist the Obama birther stuff onto Clinton was pretty hilarious. It is also additional evidence that Trump has no respect whatsoever for the electorate.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/78578/yes-hillarys-2008-campaign-went-hard-on-obamas-muslim-ties/

[Glenstache]

On a different topic, trying to foist the Obama birther stuff onto Clinton was pretty hilarious. It is also additional evidence that Trump has no respect whatsoever for the electorate.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/78578/yes-hillarys-2008-campaign-went-hard-on-obamas-muslim-ties/

So.... you do realize that the connection to people like Ayers is actually different than the Birther drive or calling him an actual Muslim, correct? Even if all of the allegations in the DRAFT op ed that he never published, that has absolutely no bearing on the current campaign. As the author of that piece says:

I was not an official part of the campaign. I was not on the staff. But I was a supporter and I have no regrets for trying to help Hillary defeat Barack Obama.

[Jrr85]

On a different topic, trying to foist the Obama birther stuff onto Clinton was pretty hilarious. It is also additional evidence that Trump has no respect whatsoever for the electorate.

It's not exactly crazy to attribute sid blumenthal's actions to Hillary's campaign.  He has been on her payroll. 

But even then, it's not exactly evil that sid Blumenthal thought their might be some truth to the promotional materials used for Obama's first book.  I doubt Sid Blumenthal had really seen that at the time he made his claims, but even assuming he hadn't, it's not like the claims came out of nowhere.  If somebody had told me at the time that they have first hand seen promotional materials for Obama's book that claimed he was born in Kenya, I would have been assessing the claim by the credibility of the person telling me they had seen the promotional materials.  My first thought would not have been that the promotional materials included false information to drum up interest in his book. 

[Glenstache]

On a different topic, trying to foist the Obama birther stuff onto Clinton was pretty hilarious. It is also additional evidence that Trump has no respect whatsoever for the electorate.

It's not exactly crazy to attribute sid blumenthal's actions to Hillary's campaign.  He has been on her payroll. 

But even then, it's not exactly evil that sid Blumenthal thought their might be some truth to the promotional materials used for Obama's first book.  I doubt Sid Blumenthal had really seen that at the time he made his claims, but even assuming he hadn't, it's not like the claims came out of nowhere.  If somebody had told me at the time that they have first hand seen promotional materials for Obama's book that claimed he was born in Kenya, I would have been assessing the claim by the credibility of the person telling me they had seen the promotional materials.  My first thought would not have been that the promotional materials included false information to drum up interest in his book.

... and John McCain was born in Panama (the country, not city in FL). This generated far less fanfare in his campaign. As a white affluent male, I wonder why? In other words, Obama is the child of a US citizen, so it just does not matter even if he had been born in Kenya instead of Hawaii.

[nobodyspecial]

.. and John McCain was born in Panama (the country, not city in FL). This generated far less fanfare in his campaign. As a white affluent male, I wonder why? In other words, Obama is the child of a US citizen, so it just does not matter even if he had been born in Kenya instead of Hawaii.

I wonder why all the discrimination is aimed at Mr Obama ?
He is quite tall and definitely not ginger, is he left-handed ?

[thd7t]

.. and John McCain was born in Panama (the country, not city in FL). This generated far less fanfare in his campaign. As a white affluent male, I wonder why? In other words, Obama is the child of a US citizen, so it just does not matter even if he had been born in Kenya instead of Hawaii.

I wonder why all the discrimination is aimed at Mr Obama ?
He is quite tall and definitely not ginger, is he left-handed ?

He is left handed, but that's a presidential trait.

[Glenstache]

This interaction between Obama and (in one direction) Trump from the 2011 Correspondents Dinner is pretty amusing, and a nice time capsule from the birther movement. The Trump bit starts around half way in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

[Jrr85]

On a different topic, trying to foist the Obama birther stuff onto Clinton was pretty hilarious. It is also additional evidence that Trump has no respect whatsoever for the electorate.

It's not exactly crazy to attribute sid blumenthal's actions to Hillary's campaign.  He has been on her payroll. 

But even then, it's not exactly evil that sid Blumenthal thought their might be some truth to the promotional materials used for Obama's first book.  I doubt Sid Blumenthal had really seen that at the time he made his claims, but even assuming he hadn't, it's not like the claims came out of nowhere.  If somebody had told me at the time that they have first hand seen promotional materials for Obama's book that claimed he was born in Kenya, I would have been assessing the claim by the credibility of the person telling me they had seen the promotional materials.  My first thought would not have been that the promotional materials included false information to drum up interest in his book.

... and John McCain was born in Panama (the country, not city in FL). This generated far less fanfare in his campaign. As a white affluent male, I wonder why? In other words, Obama is the child of a US citizen, so it just does not matter even if he had been born in Kenya instead of Hawaii.

That's what I always thought too but apparently if only one parent is a US citizen there are additional tests beyond "is onen parent a us citizen". and the rules apparently change depending on when you were born. Never bothered to learn what rule they were claiming Obama didn't satisfy or whether it was legitimate.

[hoping2retire35]

On a different topic, trying to foist the Obama birther stuff onto Clinton was pretty hilarious. It is also additional evidence that Trump has no respect whatsoever for the electorate.

It's not exactly crazy to attribute sid blumenthal's actions to Hillary's campaign.  He has been on her payroll. 

But even then, it's not exactly evil that sid Blumenthal thought their might be some truth to the promotional materials used for Obama's first book.  I doubt Sid Blumenthal had really seen that at the time he made his claims, but even assuming he hadn't, it's not like the claims came out of nowhere.  If somebody had told me at the time that they have first hand seen promotional materials for Obama's book that claimed he was born in Kenya, I would have been assessing the claim by the credibility of the person telling me they had seen the promotional materials.  My first thought would not have been that the promotional materials included false information to drum up interest in his book.

... and John McCain was born in Panama (the country, not city in FL). This generated far less fanfare in his campaign. As a white affluent male, I wonder why? In other words, Obama is the child of a US citizen, so it just does not matter even if he had been born in Kenya instead of Hawaii.

It was because he was a Republican. Democrats don't care to make this an issue. I even missed this and I pay pretty close attention to politics. Had I known I wouldn't have voted for him. Maybe even sued our state election commission to remove him from the ballot or something. I now know the senate passed that resolution stating he was qualified to run but I could care less, that is political pandering to their buddy. For the record I also believe Cruz was ineligible.

[ender]

In other words, Obama is the child of a US citizen, so it just does not matter even if he had been born in Kenya instead of Hawaii.

Well, technically this would depend on the country he was born in and whether he chose an American citizenship or not when was able and that countries dual citizenship laws.

[deadlymonkey]

In other words, Obama is the child of a US citizen, so it just does not matter even if he had been born in Kenya instead of Hawaii.

Well, technically this would depend on the country he was born in and whether he chose an American citizenship or not when was able and that countries dual citizenship laws.

You don't "choose" American citizenship.  I have 2 children born outside the US and both are US citizens.  if one parent is a US citizen, the child automatically is a US citizen unless they actively take steps to renounce it at 18.  You can fail to file for paperwork (SS card, birth certificate (consular certificate of birth for overseas), but even without filing for that paperwork, the child is still a US citizen.

[cliffhanger]

https://www.gq.com/story/176-reasons-donald-trump-shouldnt-be-president-olbermann

That goes along with the video I posted yesterday. I didn't verify each point myself but I figure it is worthwhile as food for thought.

Let me ask, do you agree with 100% of what he's said?

So I watched the video and skimmed through the article. Just from a first impression, it seems like his statements are a mixture of true, false, taken out of context, and completely irrelevant. I actually find the amount of statements and the amount of anger the presenter shows to justify how terrible Trump is to completely miss the point. Most media isn't exactly trustworthy when it comes to how they portray Trump, so I'd be surprised if a single undecided voter was swayed by this argument. Just imagine if Hannity started a segment with how vile, corrupt, dishonest, etc. Hillary Clinton is. We'd all just ignore the rest of what he says.

If Clinton supporters truly want to see her win, the best thing to do is probably send the media a copy of Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb right away. Posting constant hit pieces on Trump for stupid reasons, calling his supporters racist, sexist, bigot, etc.... These are constantly losing power and probably bringing in more votes. This is going to, in my opinion, lead to Trump winning.

[ender]

In other words, Obama is the child of a US citizen, so it just does not matter even if he had been born in Kenya instead of Hawaii.

Well, technically this would depend on the country he was born in and whether he chose an American citizenship or not when was able and that countries dual citizenship laws.

You don't "choose" American citizenship.  I have 2 children born outside the US and both are US citizens.  if one parent is a US citizen, the child automatically is a US citizen unless they actively take steps to renounce it at 18.  You can fail to file for paperwork (SS card, birth certificate (consular certificate of birth for overseas), but even without filing for that paperwork, the child is still a US citizen.

It depends on the terms of the other countries citizenship process and at what age that occurs. Some countries allow this indefinitely, some do not.

Either way it's not the problem Obama dealt with given he was born on American soil and had American parents :P

[Jack]

... and John McCain was born in Panama (the country, not city in FL). This generated far less fanfare in his campaign. As a white affluent male, I wonder why? In other words, Obama is the child of a US citizen, so it just does not matter even if he had been born in Kenya instead of Hawaii.

John McCain was not born in Panama. He was born on a US Military base (by definition, US soil) that happened to be surrounded by Panama.

Actually, that's not even accurate: at the time, it wasn't even surrounded by Panama (the country), it was surrounded by the Panama Canal Zone, which was a US Territory.

[hoping2retire35]

Galifianakis VERSUS Fallon. Who gave the softerball interview? These are both comedy shows so in what was does it matter and how did they each fail/not fail?

[RangerOne]

https://www.gq.com/story/176-reasons-donald-trump-shouldnt-be-president-olbermann

That goes along with the video I posted yesterday. I didn't verify each point myself but I figure it is worthwhile as food for thought.

Let me ask, do you agree with 100% of what he's said?

So I watched the video and skimmed through the article. Just from a first impression, it seems like his statements are a mixture of true, false, taken out of context, and completely irrelevant. I actually find the amount of statements and the amount of anger the presenter shows to justify how terrible Trump is to completely miss the point. Most media isn't exactly trustworthy when it comes to how they portray Trump, so I'd be surprised if a single undecided voter was swayed by this argument. Just imagine if Hannity started a segment with how vile, corrupt, dishonest, etc. Hillary Clinton is. We'd all just ignore the rest of what he says.

If Clinton supporters truly want to see her win, the best thing to do is probably send the media a copy of Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb right away. Posting constant hit pieces on Trump for stupid reasons, calling his supporters racist, sexist, bigot, etc.... These are constantly losing power and probably bringing in more votes. This is going to, in my opinion, lead to Trump winning.

Though the left media is surely biased it is hard to make a criticism of Trump that isn't valid. Though I would agree that because people assume 100% bias of the mainstream media their hit pieces are just preaching to the choir...

Criticizing Hillary in a hit piece can be easy but for different reasons. She has held high profile positions and has made some controversial decisions as a result. Some are validly controversial others are bullshit that have simply arisen because she wields a lot of power in the democratic party and thus has a big fat target on her back.

When someone comes to me and tells me all the fucked up things they think Hillary has done with her power and then follow up by saying or insinuating that Trump hasn't done any of that stuff. The only thought I have swimming around in my head is the only reason Trump doesn't have a fucked up laundry list of major decisions is because he has never held any real power and based on his intelligence, knowledge, business practices, public remarks, opinions, and actions I don't believe he should ever be in any position of power in the government.

I am unenthusiastically throwing a vote to Clinton, and literally my only hope for her Presidency is that we don't fall into a full blow war and congress blocks most new expensive initiatives. I am fearful of Trump Presidency because many of his sycophants are idiots(though not all) or alt right and would push policies and agendas that are worse on all fronts.

[Northwestie]

Trump shows no interesting in complex issues either domestic or foreign.

Trying to explain them to this dunce is like trying to explain differential calculus to someone not familiar with the full times table.

[Glenstache]

(quote below shortened to prevent thread bloat)

....

Having said that, I think his words were less than ideal and were prone to condemnation.  I think his choice of words was irresponsible and possibly indicates how ill-prepared he is. If someone in his apprentice show had used such vagueness in any speech, they would've been fired by him on grounds of incompetence. But he did it anyway.
....

I'm bringing out this bolded part, admittedly a bit out of context as Street Cat pretty clearly said they did not like Trump, because it illustrates something about Trump's appeal. Many, or at least some, like him because of his appearance on the reality TV show The Apprentice. This show was heavily, heavily scripted including all of Trump's actions and words. This is discussed pretty frankly by those who were on the show with Trump.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/apprentice-stars-denounce-trump

http://www.businessinsider.com/penn-jillette-reveals-what-it-was-like-to-work-with-donald-trump-2016-8

[deadlymonkey]

I really hope a book or movie comes out showing the behind the scenes stuff with the Trump campaign like Game Changer did for the Mccain/Palin ticket.

[Glenstache]

This level of crazy is a pretty good reason to not vote Trump:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en

[alsoknownasDean]

Either way, I don't think Trump's support will wane much whatever happens.

It appears as though a number of his supporters are completely over the top in support of him, and won't accept any criticism. It's like it's a cult.

[dividendman]

Wow... there are so many scandals with Trump that it's actually helping him. The media can't focus on one or two like they can with Clinton.

I actually think the problems are (in order of severity of how bad it is for a potential President):

- illegally doing business with Cuba during the embargo
- illegally using Trump Foundation funds for his own personal expenses/items
- being a crazy dude who can't stop himself from insulting random people (Rosie O'Donnell, this Miss Universe person) when it has really nothing to do with him running for president
- being or at least inciting xenophobic, sexist, racist views
- not understanding how the US government works (separation of powers, how a bill becomes law, etc.)
- not understanding his own policies
- being generally bad on business contracts/stiffing people
- random other things (too many to list here, but a few nuggets are: women should be jailed for abortions, Muslims should be banned from entering the country, pregnancy is bad for employers, etc.)
- finally his actual proclaimed positions (at least today): wall on the border, crazy tax plan, insane isolationist trade deals etc.

Note I think his actual positions are the least of his problems, but still pretty bad.

[arebelspy]

- not understanding how the US government works (separation of powers, how a bill becomes law, etc.)

Shocking that this rates fifth for a potential President of the United States.

[redbirdfan]

- illegally doing business with Cuba during the embargo
- illegally using Trump Foundation funds for his own personal expenses/items
- being a crazy dude who can't stop himself from insulting random people (Rosie O'Donnell, this Miss Universe person) when it has really nothing to do with him running for president
- being or at least inciting xenophobic, sexist, racist views
- not understanding how the US government works (separation of powers, how a bill becomes law, etc.)
- not understanding his own policies
- being generally bad on business contracts/stiffing people
- random other things (too many to list here, but a few nuggets are: women should be jailed for abortions, Muslims should be banned from entering the country, pregnancy is bad for employers, etc.)
- finally his actual proclaimed positions (at least today): wall on the border, crazy tax plan, insane isolationist trade deals etc.

This. 

I never play the race card (I'm a black female), but I would be remiss if I didn't do so in this case.  I cannot begin to tell you how offensive his"what the hell do you have to lose" rhetoric is.  His appeal to "law and order" and support of "stop and frisk" as it was applied in New York make me cringe at the thought of his federal judge nominees up to and including the Supreme Court.  His rhetoric is an affront to just about the entire Bill of Rights.

Having said that, I don't think there is anything he can do to lose at least 40% of the vote.  What's more troubling to me as a Republican is that I don't think there is anything he can say or do to cause the "establishment" Republicans to distance themselves from him - even if it's in the best interest of the party.  I mourn the loss of rational political discourse.  I grew up reading Bill Buckley and Norm Chomsky.  Something has been lost where now those who disagree with our point of view are our enemies.  Media outlets are so politicized that everyone stays in their own irrational echo chambers with limited critical thinking.

Before this election I would have bet everything that there were no circumstances under which I could vote for Hillary.  I can admit that Hillary Clinton has major flaws regarding transparency.  What I refuse to do is replay the soundbites of the echo chamber regarding Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation or her emails.  I can be honest enough to admit that Hillary was considered equally corrupt in 2008.  I can be honest enough to admit that she is the only candidate who is objectively qualified to be POTUS. 

I don't care that I don't want to have a beer with her.  I don't care that her foundation took money from potentially shady actors to do legitimate charity work (the donors are all listed).  I don't care that she was complacent enough to set up a private server in her basement over which she sent and/or received classified information.  Under normal circumstances I would care a great deal.  But this is 2016 and we are in a political twilight zone.  In 2016, I don't get to care about any of those things because the alternative...well the alternative is Donald Trump.  Hillary is qualified, competent and sane.  Period. FULL STOP.

TLDR: I'm a moderate Republican.  My party has lost its mind.  Donald Trump would be a disaster.  Hillary Clinton is qualified and sane.  I'm with her.   

[iris lily]

- illegally doing business with Cuba during the embargo
- illegally using Trump Foundation funds for his own personal expenses/items
- being a crazy dude who can't stop himself from insulting random people (Rosie O'Donnell, this Miss Universe person) when it has really nothing to do with him running for president
- being or at least inciting xenophobic, sexist, racist views
- not understanding how the US government works (separation of powers, how a bill becomes law, etc.)
- not understanding his own policies
- being generally bad on business contracts/stiffing people
- random other things (too many to list here, but a few nuggets are: women should be jailed for abortions, Muslims should be banned from entering the country, pregnancy is bad for employers, etc.)
- finally his actual proclaimed positions (at least today): wall on the border, crazy tax plan, insane isolationist trade deals etc.

This. 

I never play the race card (I'm a black female), but I would be remiss if I didn't do so in this case.  I cannot begin to tell you how offensive his"what the hell do you have to lose" rhetoric is.  His appeal to "law and order" and support of "stop and frisk" as it was applied in New York make me cringe at the thought of his federal judge nominees up to and including the Supreme Court.  His rhetoric is an affront to just about the entire Bill of Rights.

Having said that, I don't think there is anything he can do to lose at least 40% of the vote.  What's more troubling to me as a Republican is that I don't think there is anything he can say or do to cause the "establishment" Republicans to distance themselves from him - even if it's in the best interest of the party.  I mourn the loss of rational political discourse.  I grew up reading Bill Buckley and Norm Chomsky.  Something has been lost where now those who disagree with our point of view are our enemies.  Media outlets are so politicized that everyone stays in their own irrational echo chambers with limited critical thinking.

Before this election I would have bet everything that there were no circumstances under which I could vote for Hillary.  I can admit that Hillary Clinton has major flaws regarding transparency.  What I refuse to do is replay the soundbites of the echo chamber regarding Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation or her emails.  I can be honest enough to admit that Hillary was considered equally corrupt in 2008.  I can be honest enough to admit that she is the only candidate who is objectively qualified to be POTUS. 

I don't care that I don't want to have a beer with her.  I don't care that her foundation took money from potentially shady actors to do legitimate charity work (the donors are all listed).  I don't care that she was complacent enough to set up a private server in her basement over which she sent and/or received classified information.  Under normal circumstances I would care a great deal.  But this is 2016 and we are in a political twilight zone.  In 2016, I don't get to care about any of those things because the alternative...well the alternative is Donald Trump.  Hillary is qualified, competent and sane.  Period. FULL STOP.

TLDR: I'm a moderate Republican.  My party has lost its mind.  Donald Trump would be a disaster.  Hillary Clinton is qualified and sane.  I'm with her.   

This is a wonderfull post. I Dont know how many establishment
Republicans are on Team Trump, tho.

I cant bring myself to seriously contemplate voting for Hilary, yet as the polls close in and he becomes more unhinged, it becomes less unthinkable.

P.s.  Will not be voting for Trump, though.  Thought
I should make that clear. I figured Hillary will smoke him in the election.

[Mr Dorothy Dollar]

When Trump calls a former beauty queen fat, I go and look her up.  She is a normal looking woman to me. I think of other normal looking women in my life, my mom, sisters, and in-laws. I know the hurt that my mom has with trying to get back to the weight she was at 25 when she has a 55-year-old metabolism. I can only imagine how nasty Trump would be to the women in my life. These women deserve better than that.

How can a Trump supporter knowing how he would treat your mother/wife/daughter (calling her a fat pig) still vote for him?

[GuitarStv]

When Trump calls a former beauty queen fat, I go and look her up.

See, there's your first mistake.  The scenario painted is one where Trump turns out to be a giant asshole regardless of what happens.

Let's say you look her up and she's a 900 lb blimp.  Does that make what he said better?  Are his comments going to tell the woman anything she doesn't already know, or just hurt her?

Now let's say you look her up and she's a typical beauty queen winner.  Does that make what he said any better?  Are his comments going to help her in any way, or just hurt her?

[fa]

Domestic policy is mostly set by congress, so I am mostly hoping that at least one chamber will be controlled by the other party.

International policy is different.  The new president could easily start another war.  I can't figure out whether Hillary or Trump is more or less likely to start a war, but then again I have not followed the election cycle closely.

Beauty queen discussions and the like are not relevant.  Trump is no gentleman and doesn't know what being courteous means.  I don't need more confirmation of that.  He is such a loose cannon that I don't even know which direction it will fire.  To be honest, I believe he is far more socially liberal than he leads on.  One reason the Republican establishment is not excited.  I think his unpredictability disqualifies him as president.

Hillary running an email server from her house while being Secretary of State is worrisome.  It shows that she is willing to go through a lot of effort to circumvent established policies and maybe break the law.  I can't really think of anything other than a desire for opaqueness and control of information for her to do all this.  It takes a lot to decide to disconnect from the established State Department communication system.  That doesn't bode well for a presidency.   Hers would be a presidency filled with scandal and illegality.  Think Richard Nixon.  I think her strong desire for opaqueness and control outside of the law disqualifies her as president.

Can we just skip this election?  I am sure Obama would not mind.  Or maybe a computer program could run the country until we can find 2 qualified candidates.  In the mean time I keep my TV unplugged.

[sol]

To be honest, I believe he is far more socially liberal than he leads on.

I have several friends who are otherwise sane and thoughtful progressive voters who are backing Trump for this very reason.  They argue that his positions in the 90s on things like abortion are more relevant than the things he says now, or the current policies on his website. 

[arebelspy]

To be honest, I believe he is far more socially liberal than he leads on.

I have several friends who are otherwise sane and thoughtful progressive voters who are backing Trump for this very reason.  They argue that his positions in the 90s on things like abortion are more relevant than the things he says now, or the current policies on his website.

That's a big risk to take.

It seems more likely to me that as he's aged (he's 70 now) he's become more of a grumpy old man conservative.  Who the hell knows though.  Still, a big risk to take.

[Midwest]

When Trump calls a former beauty queen fat, I go and look her up.  She is a normal looking woman to me. I think of other normal looking women in my life, my mom, sisters, and in-laws. I know the hurt that my mom has with trying to get back to the weight she was at 25 when she has a 55-year-old metabolism. I can only imagine how nasty Trump would be to the women in my life. These women deserve better than that.

How can a Trump supporter knowing how he would treat your mother/wife/daughter (calling her a fat pig) still vote for him?

Trump has said some amazingly stupid things (some of the things about this person were among them).  With regard to her weight, however, she was employed as Miss Universe and (I suspect) signed a contract to look a certain way.  If she failed to live up to those expectations, she hurts the brand.  I would tell my loved ones to avoid beauty contests if they have body image issues.

In addition, a) she has a serious credibility problem b) Hillary (married to Bill) is fairly rich as  champion of women's rights given the way Monica was destroyed after her dalliance with Bill.

Lastly, I think we deserve better than either of these 2.  We are arguing about which is worse.  I know almost no one voting FOR Trump, although they may be voting against Clinton.