Campaign 2016

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'm definitely 100 MILLION percent behind Stein, but I'd prefer Johnston to Trump or Hillary.

Of course, I'd prefer Bernie to all of them combined, but....

[SinisterSmile]

If you don't see how Trump engaging with people could be a bad thing, I have to assume you haven't heard him speak. There is the obvious, which is that he offends broad swaths of people--American citizens, mind you, not just those good-for-nothing rapist illegals...--and then there is the should-be-obvious, which is that he doesn't make coherent points. Ever. He can barely create sentences. He mumbles a few points and his followers cheer because they assume he's saying something they'd like, even though what he is saying makes no literal sense and tends not to be practical in any way. Build a wall and make them pay for it? Seriously? It's like a joke, with the unfortunate aspect of being real. Hopefully it's just some kind of Andy Kaufmanesque stroke of genius, an 18-month (or 40 year?) piece of performance art. Otherwise it's just pathetic.

I have heard Trump speak, and it doesn't matter if you agree with the points that he makes, but he's an excellent persuader. A mistake you make is that thinking that him holding multiple rallies a day is a bad thing, but it's actually one of his strengths. Trump is a genius, and I know that'll probably be met with sneers, jeers, all that stuff, but he didn't get to where he is based on luck, now did he? He knows how to control a room and generate a response. He has mastered the art of absorbing an attack and reflecting it on his opponents. Do you think any politician on either side would be able to take half of the attacks he's taken? No way. Look at this clip as a small example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFGiZT-MnI4

Clinton goes to her line about temperament which she's been relying on for weeks, and in just a couple of seconds, Trump completely flipped it, absorbed it, and the line worked in his favour. You might think it was silly and petty what he just did, but for a lot of his supporters, every time the word 'temperament' is used it will have this association.

She's old. She was sick. I'm not all that worried about it. And if she gets sick and dies in office, oh well. But as I said, I'm not arguing for Clinton. I'm arguing that Trump is just excruciatingly stupid and generally incomprehensible in matters related in any way to governance or foreign policy. (He's also older, and overweight, and despite what his awesome doctor's note said, he's statistically more likely to die in office than she is. I prefer her VP to his, as well, despite not liking either one. But at least Kaine didn't try to "protect freedom of religion" by legalizing discrimination based on sexual orientation the way Pence did right up until his state faced a massive pullout of major businesses.)

Well, it's ok that her health isn't a concern for you, but it's a legit issue, just like how in 2008 John McCain's age was made into an issue. When you say that Trump's statistically more likely to die, what're you basing that on? If we just had their age and gender on paper you might have a case, but we have much more information than that. We have video of Hillary passing out on 9/11, videos of her going into uncontrollable coughing fits, in 2013 she was discharged from hospital with a brain clot and her aid is on record stating 'she's often confused'. Trump has shown nothing but good health as far as I know. And like I said before, this election isn't going to be decided on policy, that ship sailed a long time ago.

If I'm not going to stand up for Clinton (as I'm not a supporter of hers), I'm certainly not going to stand up for CNN, which is a clown-car of a media outlet. But this is hardly some mainstream media opinion. Here is the Washington Post's refutation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/?utm_term=.1443afa47e2d

The WikiLeaks stuff troubles me for a few reasons. First, I am not a fan of WikiLeaks. Illegally obtaining classified or otherwise sensitive information is scary--for everyone. We can rest assured that it's only controversial public figures, until it isn't. What if the massive AOL leak of about 10 years ago had included names as well as numeric identifiers? Huge consequences for many people. We giggle or say it serves 'em right because they're the elites who we know have been fucking us ... except the massive e-break-ins and curated releases aren't some sort of transparency, they're just a different form of narrative (being shaped by different agendas). Some things that come from their leaks are valuable to the public, some aren't, but the basic underlying concept remains troubling. I'm not saying worth wholesale damnation. Just saying troubling.

We also know the leaks over their history have tended to be in some cases doctored. Whether by the initial hackers or someone there, I don't think we know. But it does give us reason to pause before swallowing what we're spoon-fed by Mr. Assange's crew.

As for Clinton's own hacked emails, so far I haven't seen anything all that troubling. Whole lotta "yeah, that sounds about right..."

Fair enough about CNN, I don't expect anyone to defend their behaviour. I just wanted to bring up one recent example of the media covering for Hillary that really stood out to me.
As for Wikileaks, what times in the past have they leaked fake or doctored information? I think we should talk about the morality of how they obtain their information some other time. I'd like to focus on the content. Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to step down from her role due to some damning stuff. We have Donna Brazile stating she receives debate questions early from time to time, and even Hillary has come out and defended what she's said from those leaks.

Now you don't have to defend Hillary, because a lot of people can't and for some I think it might be getting harder by the day, but if Trump does managed to win this, it shouldn't come as a surprise.

[SinisterSmile]

Most US politicians don't focus their campaigns on massive rallies for their base. It's not really effective and it gives some people the creeps. Clinton's campaign, like most campaigns, is focused on the 'ground game' - targeted appearances in key communities; recruiting local organizers to hold events and build a GOTV operation; targeted advertising. Most campaigns are aimed at winning an election, not just feeding a candidate's ego.

Trump was the last man standing in a primary of 17 candidates. He didn't get to where he is with sheer luck, he know's what's works and what doesn't. And keep in mind, Trump isn't like 'most US politicians', he's managed to shape the playing field so it's on his terms. And why would a rally give people the creeps?

[the captain]

SinisterSmile - rather than quote the whole thing and break it up again, I'll just address each main point.

Trump's incoherence / persuasion abilities:
You say "it doesn'tmatter if you agree with the points that he makes, but he's an excellent persuader." I'll agree with you, but only to a point: he certainly has shown sufficient charisma to persuade people, but the issue I have is that he doesn't (consistently) say anything that is logically coherent. Do you see the difference? He's selling people a scam. His actual points, the things people should vote on, have either never been said clearly, or have been changed regularly. Whether it's his position on abortion (changed what, three times in one day last summer?), on how to handle the Middle Eastern wars (go in harder? leave them alone?), any immigration policy details beyond the Big Bad Wall, Muslim immigration, minimum wage, tax policy on the wealthy, climate change, the national debt... He speaks in sentence fragments punctuated by "you know what I mean," "you know what I'm talking about," "it's gonna be great--really, really great," "a lot of smart people think so," etc. But he doesn't lay out a whole lot of subject-verb-object strings that make coherent sense. When he's reading from his teleprompter, he's OK, but nobody cares because it sounds just like every other politician (which makes sense, because presumably those speeches have been written by the typical advisor types). When he ad-libs, the crowds love it, but he's not saying anything substantive beyond who he's going to sue, who's low energy, etc. It's all marketing. It's B.S. It's incoherent. The man is a clown. It's very, very sad that anyone is paying attention to him.

Clinton / health
Yes, I was just going by demographics. He's older, he's male. Both had positive medical evaluations (with one more laughable than the other). The concerns about her health are blatant partisan speculation. I'm discounting those. So if they both have reasonably good health per medical evaluations, I'm saying it's more likely he dies earlier. But I'm not making it an issue because it's speculation. You know, like the alt-right has been dizzying itself doing about her...

Wiki
To be clear again, I am not saying ALL Wiki docs are doctored, or even all Clinton ones are. I'm just saying there is a history of doctoring some, which casts doubt on any particular release that isn't independently verified. Here are some words from a recent Politico story on the topic. But first, let me reiterate, this isn't even an issue for me, in that nothing in the Clinton emails strikes me as all that surprising or damning. Just politics. Unseemly, a little slimy, and totally typical. Certainly preferable to what Trump states openly. But the point of this is not defending HRC, it is simply noting that those who leak hacked emails ought not be blindly trusted ... which seems pretty obvious, if you think about it. (It's a little like taking a kidnapper's word when he ups your ransom and keeps your kid. "He lied to me!?" No sh*t...)

Experts told PolitiFact that there is precedent to support Kaine’s claim. While most of the emails are probably unaltered, they said there is a chance that at least a few have been tampered with in some way.

"I've looked at a lot of document dumps provided by hacker groups over the years, and in almost every case you can find a few altered or entirely falsified documents," said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of cybersecurity firm Taia Global. "But only a few. The vast majority were genuine. I believe that's the case with the Podesta emails, as well."

"I would be shocked if the emails weren't altered," said Jamie Winterton, director of strategy for Arizona State University’s Global Security Initiative, citing Russia’s long history of spreading disinformation.

Experts pointed to the Democratic National Committee email hack that happened earlier this year. Metadata from the stolen and leaked documents showed the hackers had edited documents. For example, hackers were kicked out of the DNC network June 11, yet among their documents is a file that was created on June 15, found Thomas Rid, a war studies professor at King’s College London. 

A few weeks later, Guccifer 2.0, the hacker believed to have Russian ties, released documents supposedly stolen from the Clinton Foundation. But security analysts reviewed the documents and found that they actually came from the DNC hacks, not the foundation. And some of the information was likely fabricated, like a folder conspicuously titled "Pay to Play."

In massive document dumps like the Podesta email leak, the risk of encountering altered documents is heightened because it’s easy to slip them in among thousands of genuine documents, said Susan Hennessey, a Brookings Institution fellow and former lawyer for the National Security Agency.

"It is possible the WikiLeaks dump of Podesta’s emails includes forged or altered documents," Hennessey said. "With any large leak, it is wise to proceed with caution and skepticism and verify the authenticity of documents before reporting."

The Clinton campaign, however, has yet to produce any evidence that any specific emails in the latest leak were fraudulent. We asked the campaign, and they directed us to various news reports about the DNC hack, government concerns that Russia might fake evidence of voter fraud, and fake news sites spreading false information about the WikiLeaks emails.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/23/are-clinton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/

[Emily]

Trump was the last man standing in a primary of 17 candidates. He didn't get to where he is with sheer luck, he know's what's works and what doesn't. And keep in mind, Trump isn't like 'most US politicians', he's managed to shape the playing field so it's on his terms.

... but he's an excellent persuader...Trump is a genius...he didn't get to where he is based on luck, now did he? He knows how to control a room and generate a response. He has mastered the art of absorbing an attack and reflecting it on his opponents.

Indeed, he got where he is based on luck. He inherited hundreds of millions of dollars and a successful business. He ran for president in a year in which the mood was perfect for a populist authoritarian to rally a nativist right-wing mob. He wouldn't have been successful in a normal election year. Note - Bernie Sanders was quite successful as well. Because the mood was not perfect, but it was good, for an anti-establishment left-wing mob. Sanders wouldn't have been as successful in most election years.

Trump is only a genius in the sense that Brian Wilson is a genius - it's a native talent, not a matter of intellect. Trump has a talent for self-promotion and sales. But I don't think he's particularly talented at that. He's failed repeatedly at his business ventures; he can't control his spending; he's robbed and lied and scammed his way through a 40 year career and yet has only gained about 7% on his inheritance - worse than I have done on what I started with - probably worse than most people on the board have done. He's done worse than index funds over the same period. He doesn't seem to be a particularly better sales person than the late night infomercial people. Every one in the country knows about those snuggly blanket-things. Whoever made those probably made more than 7%. I'm pretty sure anyone who inherited hundreds of millions of dollars and wanted to be famous could be. Is Paris Hilton a genius?
In the campaign, he's run through multiple advisors who have tried to teach him how to manage the general election but, again, he can't learn - his numbers have barely budged through the entire general election campaign. 42% He's got his natural audience, but he's been unable to expand it. Whatever "genius" he has, it's not linked to intelligence, and he has not "mastered" any "arts".

The way you and his supporters perceived his performance in the debates is - there's statistical proof - a minority perspective. His 'persuasion' failed to convince anyone new, which was his assignment.

You might think it was silly and petty what he just did, but for a lot of his supporters, every time the word 'temperament' is used it will have this association.

Again, his supporters weren't his target (or wouldn't have been if he had the capacity to learn). He lost support during the debates. Getting his supporters to cheer is not an election-winning skill.

Now you don't have to defend Hillary, because a lot of people can't and for some I think it might be getting harder by the day, but if Trump does managed to win this, it shouldn't come as a surprise.

In fact, her positive ratings among her supporters have been increasing and her negative ratings among former undecided/third-party supporters have been decreasing. That would indicate that "defending" her is getting easier for anyone who has any desire to do so. The 42% would never want to defend her, of course.

And why would a rally give people the creeps?

Because we associate political mobs with negative things: witch trials; Nuremberg rallies; tarring and feathering; pitchforks and torches, public stonings. Have you seen anyone hold the sorts of political rallies Trump's been having since WWII? It's not really done. We seem to have decided it's best to leave the whole crazed mob thing to sports and teen-idol audiences.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Well, doing early voting tomorrow...talk about a bad feeling...

I despise Donald Trump more than words could possibly say. Have felt that way for decades.
I despise Hillary Clinton almost as much (for different reasons).

I want to vote for Jill Stein, but...
1) I'm on the fence about her VP
2) I have my doubts about her foreign policy ability
3)Constant pier pressure not to "throw away my vote".

I'm not voting for Trump, that much is clear. That would NEVER happen.

But looks no matter what, I'm going to make the "wrong" choice. I either vote for someone that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to become President, or for someone I despise.

Just thinking about it makes me sick to my stomach.

[SinisterSmile]

the captain - Yeah, the multi-quoting can be a bit tricky

Trump's incoherence / persuasion abilities

I can see where you're coming from, but it's not accident that he he's changed his positions multiple times within a short time frame. He tests the waters, and once he figures out what works he sticks with. Keep in mind that he's been a politician for like 18 months, so he's had to do all his testing and cementing on the fly. Politicians flip flopping around isn't anything new, and Hillary done some of that herself. Only difference is she can mask it by saying she's changed with time. The past few months he's made numerous policy speeches and his positions are all available on his website.

And as for the speech mannerisms, he could easily speak more 'presidential' if he chose to, but he's framing this election as the everyman vs a corrupt system, outsider vs establishment, David vs Goliath. The way he talks is connecting with people because from the very beginning, Trump has used the fact that he's not a polished politician to get further.

Clinton / health

It's fine if you don't find an issue with Clinton's health, but you can bet it's going to come up before election day again. That video of her collapsing is pure fuel for his supporters and as far as I can tell, there isn't a clear counter punch for it from Hillary's campaign

Wiki

Personally while there's been some dodgy stuff in the leaks, there hasn't been a super homerun with it as far as I can tell. The fact remains that it's a dark cloud circling over the campaign, and it's a tool that Trump uses every single chance he gets. He's continues to frame Clinton as incompetent, plus it keeps her emails in the playing field, something her campaign wishes would go away.

The biggest point I want to get across is that you shouldn't underestimate Trump, because many others have and now he's within striking distance of being president. Fingers crossed, hey

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

And then there's this...

https://thinkprogress.org/bill-weld-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-statement-d4be687787c2#.99alr06c9

[SinisterSmile]

Indeed, he got where he is based on luck. He inherited hundreds of millions of dollars and a successful business. He ran for president in a year in which the mood was perfect for a populist authoritarian to rally a nativist right-wing mob. He wouldn't have been successful in a normal election year. Note - Bernie Sanders was quite successful as well. Because the mood was not perfect, but it was good, for an anti-establishment left-wing mob. Sanders wouldn't have been as successful in most election years.

We can talk about how he's generated his wealth another time, but I'd like to talk about this election. When I asked about his luck, was it luck when he defeated 16 other candidates in the primary? Was it luck that he generated the highest vote count in the history of the Republican party? I don't think so. When you say that Trump wouldn't have done well in any other election year, maybe a case could be made that he has tremendously good timing.

Trump is only a genius in the sense that Brian Wilson is a genius - it's a native talent, not a matter of intellect. Trump has a talent for self-promotion and sales. But I don't think he's particularly talented at that. He's failed repeatedly at his business ventures; he can't control his spending; he's robbed and lied and scammed his way through a 40 year career and yet has only gained about 7% on his inheritance - worse than I have done on what I started with - probably worse than most people on the board have done. He's done worse than index funds over the same period. He doesn't seem to be a particularly better sales person than the late night infomercial people. Every one in the country knows about those snuggly blanket-things. Whoever made those probably made more than 7%. I'm pretty sure anyone who inherited hundreds of millions of dollars and wanted to be famous could be. Is Paris Hilton a genius?
In the campaign, he's run through multiple advisors who have tried to teach him how to manage the general election but, again, he can't learn - his numbers have barely budged through the entire general election campaign. 42% He's got his natural audience, but he's been unable to expand it. Whatever "genius" he has, it's not linked to intelligence, and he has not "mastered" any "arts".

Tell you what, if Paris Hilton spends 18 months in politics, convinces millions and millions of Americans that she's the best leader for the country and ends up with a very real chance of being leader of the free world, then absolutely I'll consider her a genius. If we put money aside for the moment, if you don't think that he's good at self promotion, then I don't think there's anything I can say to convince you otherwise. Everyone in the country might know about snuggle blankets, but can you name the person that invented it?

In the campaign he has gone through a few advisors and like I said in a previous post, he'll use every tool he can to get ahead. Whatever works.

The way you and his supporters perceived his performance in the debates is - there's statistical proof - a minority perspective. His 'persuasion' failed to convince anyone new, which was his assignment.

Again, his supporters weren't his target (or wouldn't have been if he had the capacity to learn). He lost support during the debates. Getting his supporters to cheer is not an election-winning skill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqxQRkVgLUg
Depends what statistics you wanna pay attention to. I'm not tying my soul down to a CNN focus group, but I wouldn't put too much stock into polls and stats. It's like you said, this isn't a normal election year.

In fact, her positive ratings among her supporters have been increasing and her negative ratings among former undecided/third-party supporters have been decreasing. That would indicate that "defending" her is getting easier for anyone who has any desire to do so. The 42% would never want to defend her, of course.

Now there is a difference between Trump and Hillary supporters. Trump has been immunising his supporters from media attacks from the very beginning.  You know how he's had 'scandals' that would have taken down a politician every other year? It's not luck that he's still in the running. Trump has absorbed each of these attacks and managed to successful reframe it in every instance. His supporters are used to the non-stop attacks and have become resistant, like a superbug.

Hillary has had a different strategy. She's shrunk from the spotlight and hidden for as long as possible trying to run out the clock. Children have been conceived and born in the time between her press conferences. Even now she's less than visible with only a handful of appearances before election day. She can't deal with big attacks, so come November 8, we're going to see who wins: Superbug or normal immune system.

Because we associate political mobs with negative things: witch trials; Nuremberg rallies; tarring and feathering; pitchforks and torches, public stonings. Have you seen anyone hold the sorts of political rallies Trump's been having since WWII? It's not really done. We seem to have decided it's best to leave the whole crazed mob thing to sports and teen-idol audiences.

Did you get that vibe from Bernie's rallies? I know the media likes to paint Trump as dark (https://i.sli.mg/yZQ89U.jpg) but I don't see it. Now this isn't a stab at you but the whole Hitler angle is such a played out argument that it's become a joke (http://thedeclination.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/everyone-i-dont-like-is-hitler-the-emotional-childs-guide-to-political-discussion-1452799024.jpg).
Interestingly, I've heard from some people that Hillary gives off a cult leader vibe. Maybe it's the crazy eye's or the yelling, but some people draw comparisons to the leader of Heaven's Gate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8tMk-ZOx8

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

In any other election year, either one (Trump or Clinton) would be down a huge deficit. Only reason why it's as close as it is is because these are the two worsy candidates either party has had in a long time, since Dukakis for the Democrats and since Dole for the Republicans.

[bluesno1fann]

In any other election year, either one (Trump or Clinton) would be down a huge deficit. Only reason why it's as close as it is is because these are the two worsy candidates either party has had in a long time, since Dukakis for the Democrats and since Dole for the Republicans.

What do you think was so bad about say, Dukakis?

[Emily]

In any other election year, either one (Trump or Clinton) would be down a huge deficit. Only reason why it's as close as it is is because these are the two worsy candidates either party has had in a long time, since Dukakis for the Democrats and since Dole for the Republicans.

Woah - you think Dole is worse than Trump?
Regarding the other above Trump comments, I have many thoughts, but my train is pulling in to the station. Got to go to work.

[the captain]

SinisterSmile, I think we're talking passed each other here to some extent. I'm arguing why Trump should not be president, why he isn't showing any knowledge or plan for the job (or even comprehension of how the government or world works), while you're arguing how he has become popular and could win. Those aren't the same thing. I'm not denying it's possible he could be elected, or that he's drawing big crowds. I'm arguing that he hasn't ever said or done anything of substance that shows he has the ability to be a good president. (That doesn't mean it's impossible that he could be, but you could argue the same about a few hundred million other people.)

Generally I would think people choose a candidate based on him or her best aligning with one's own values or principles. Trump has shown quite literally none, other than an inability to take any criticism without lashing out in a juvenile way. His inconsistent positions aren't because he's new to politics--which he's not, he's been dabbling in it for decades and seriously considered runs in the past...he's had time to bone up--it's because he has no positions. It's so obvious. These aren't misstatements, they're often contradictions that show no core beliefs or knowledge on the subjects at hand. Recommending violations of international law, defaulting on national debt, infringing on other countries' sovereignty, supporting or not supporting this or that, etc., these aren't "oh, I got that wrong because I've only been a politician for 18 months." It shows a total disinterest in truth or policy.

But again, I totally concede that he has drawn a lot of attention and built up a cult of personality style of follower. Some politicians do that. I despise that kind of politics and think it's inherently dangerous in addition to being just kind of stupid. (Voting based on charisma is ludicrous. It's like buying based on advertisements. ("Shiny off-road trucks and models' cleavage! I need this beer!"))

Let me know if I'm misinterpreting, but I think that's our issue. Talking about two different things.

[the captain]

While I haven't yet decided for whom I'll vote--hoping neither major-party candidate, but not a fan of the three "major" minor-party or independents and not up to speed on anyone else--it is safe to say I would vote for anyone, probably, if it helped keep Trump out of office. In case my posts aren't clear, I find him uniquely abhorrent (not to mention just shockingly stupid. That's really what gets me.).

With that in mind, I chuckled a little at Sam Harris's introduction to his latest podcast on the topic. His guest is Andrew Sullivan. I'm 2:12 in, so the next two and a half hours should be fun.

"I think Trump is just a terrible human being, while Hillary is merely a compromised one. And the difference is enormous."

[the captain]

While I haven't yet decided for whom I'll vote--hoping neither major-party candidate, but not a fan of the three "major" minor-party or independents and not up to speed on anyone else--it is safe to say I would vote for anyone, probably, if it helped keep Trump out of office. In case my posts aren't clear, I find him uniquely abhorrent (not to mention just shockingly stupid. That's really what gets me.).

With that in mind, I chuckled a little at Sam Harris's introduction to his latest podcast on the topic. His guest is Andrew Sullivan. I'm 2:12 in, so the next two and a half hours should be fun.

"I think Trump is just a terrible human being, while Hillary is merely a compromised one. And the difference is enormous."

Seven minutes into this and I am halfway between shocked with mouth agape and just laughing. Somehow I don't think Mr. Harris cares much for Mr. Trump. (This is brutal.)

[SurfRapGrungeFiend]

Offtopic/. Bob dole thats been awhile since I heard his name,  my mom loved him but his fight on gangsta rap aka Time Warner was preposterous while accepting over $20,000 in donation money from those rap records he despised...



I have a good feeling about trump winning i dont know why atleast around here i see more & more trump banners everywhere

[the captain]

"When I say of Trump that he shouldn't be president because he's dangerously uninformed, and even in many respects unintelligent; and he's a pathological liar--not an ordinary liar, but a liar of a sort you'd expect to meet only in a mental hospital--and that he's a deeply unethical person, one who's actually famous for treating people terribly; and that he's an anti-intellectual, someone who has no respect for real knowledge, much less the life of the mind; someone for instance who could perpetrate a fraud like Trump University and not want to kill himself out of shame; and that he's a sexual predator, not merely married to one; and yes, that he's very likely also a bigot; and above all a bully and a con man. An obvious con man. The most obvious con man I have ever seen in public life. ... I've argued that giving Donald Trump more responsibility than any person on earth is a bad idea because of who he is, because of the bad qualities he has in spades, and because of the good ones he so obviously lacks. If you're picking a player for a professional basketball team, and a person comes forward demanding to play, and you reject him because he's 4'2" and obese, and 85 years old, and doesn't seem to know how to play basketball in the first place, that is not an ad hominem fallacy. The person is wrong for the job, and the fact that he doesn't even know it makes it worse."

How do you really feel, Sam Harris?

[the captain]

I have a good feeling about trump winning i dont know why atleast around here i see more & more trump banners everywhere

A good feeling?

Careful about taking your local observations too seriously. As America has self-sorted and now more or less reinforces its own divisions, I'd guess most people see more and more banners of one or the other candidates. In Minneapolis, you very, very rarely see a Trump sign. Last week I was in an exurb of Milwaukee and saw nothing but Trump signs, as I'd guess would be the case in my rural hometown. The math (of the electoral college) seems to support Clinton pretty strongly. And the math wins.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

In any other election year, either one (Trump or Clinton) would be down a huge deficit. Only reason why it's as close as it is is because these are the two worsy candidates either party has had in a long time, since Dukakis for the Democrats and since Dole for the Republicans.

Woah - you think Dole is worse than Trump?
Regarding the other above Trump comments, I have many thoughts, but my train is pulling in to the station. Got to go to work.

No, Dole is NOT worse than Trump; was just saying Trump was the worst Republican nominee since Dole, and hell probably since Ford.

[the captain]

In any other election year, either one (Trump or Clinton) would be down a huge deficit. Only reason why it's as close as it is is because these are the two worsy candidates either party has had in a long time, since Dukakis for the Democrats and since Dole for the Republicans.

Woah - you think Dole is worse than Trump?
Regarding the other above Trump comments, I have many thoughts, but my train is pulling in to the station. Got to go to work.

No, Dole is NOT worse than Trump; was just saying Trump was the worst Republican nominee since Dole, and hell probably since Ford.

Somewhat along the lines of what I was saying of my discussion with SinisterSmile, it may be useful to differentiate between bad candidates--politically speaking--and potentially bad presidents. I think Dole was a bad candidate in that he was up against the zeitgeist of the times, an older generation awkwardly trying to fight the Boomers' president. This was the first election season I really paid attention to (being about 19, 20), and still remember watching how awkward poor Sen. Dole looked saying at the end of some debate "and, uh, go to my web site, at, uh, double-you, double-you, double-you, BOB DOLE, dot com." It was like he still had no idea what the f*** he was talking about or why he should have to say these things.

But I think Dole would have been a perfectly acceptable president. Every few years, I miss the Republicans of a few years before, and they keep churning right through them. Dole feels like 10 generations ago now. Clearly, as is the case with so many others of his era and even some after, he could not be a Republican now. He'd have to be a Democrat or he'd be challenged in the primaries.

[Moon Dawg]

And then there's this...

https://thinkprogress.org/bill-weld-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-statement-d4be687787c2#.99alr06c9

 Which is Clinton Machine propaganda, already repudiated by Weld and Johnson. In other words, a lie. Johnson has the potential to be a bit of a spoiler. Nevada is a good example. It's a fairly blue state but right now Clinton and Trump are tied with Johnson polling at 10%. Both sides could use that 10%.

[Moon Dawg]

In any other election year, either one (Trump or Clinton) would be down a huge deficit. Only reason why it's as close as it is is because these are the two worsy candidates either party has had in a long time, since Dukakis for the Democrats and since Dole for the Republicans.

Woah - you think Dole is worse than Trump?
Regarding the other above Trump comments, I have many thoughts, but my train is pulling in to the station. Got to go to work.

No, Dole is NOT worse than Trump; was just saying Trump was the worst Republican nominee since Dole, and hell probably since Ford.

Somewhat along the lines of what I was saying of my discussion with SinisterSmile, it may be useful to differentiate between bad candidates--politically speaking--and potentially bad presidents. I think Dole was a bad candidate in that he was up against the zeitgeist of the times, an older generation awkwardly trying to fight the Boomers' president. This was the first election season I really paid attention to (being about 19, 20), and still remember watching how awkward poor Sen. Dole looked saying at the end of some debate "and, uh, go to my web site, at, uh, double-you, double-you, double-you, BOB DOLE, dot com." It was like he still had no idea what the f*** he was talking about or why he should have to say these things.

But I think Dole would have been a perfectly acceptable president. Every few years, I miss the Republicans of a few years before, and they keep churning right through them. Dole feels like 10 generations ago now. Clearly, as is the case with so many others of his era and even some after, he could not be a Republican now. He'd have to be a Democrat or he'd be challenged in the primaries.

  Good point. Bob Dole was out of his time by 1996. It would have been interesting to see him take on Michael Dukakis in 1988. Dole would have done a serviceable job had he been elected either year.

[SurfRapGrungeFiend]

I have a good feeling about trump winning i dont know why atleast around here i see more & more trump banners everywhere

A good feeling?

Careful about taking your local observations too seriously. As America has self-sorted and now more or less reinforces its own divisions, I'd guess most people see more and more banners of one or the other candidates. In Minneapolis, you very, very rarely see a Trump sign. Last week I was in an exurb of Milwaukee and saw nothing but Trump signs, as I'd guess would be the case in my rural hometown. The math (of the electoral college) seems to support Clinton pretty strongly. And the math wins.

Ha, i know i live in redneck town where hilary hell democrats get no respect, I still dont know who im voting for but it wont be neither hilary or trump

trump woulda had my if they had let 20,000 people with CCW's in the Q with guns during the RNC .  We know how bad that woulda turned out

[Emily]

 it's not accident that he he's changed his positions multiple times within a short time frame. He tests the waters, and once he figures out what works he sticks with. Keep in mind that he's been a politician for like 18 months, so he's had to do all his testing and cementing on the fly. Politicians flip flopping around isn't anything new, and Hillary done some of that herself. Only difference is she can mask it by saying she's changed with time.

He's been a grown up for 50 years and dabbling in politics, as the captain says, for 40. That he's changing his positions repeatedly over the course of 18 months, sometimes within the span of hours, is not a matter of strategy. It's a matter of making mistakes, not thinking things through, of saying what gets the best crowd reaction at the moment. It's also part of why his support doesn't leave 42%. The difference between his lack of coherent positions and Clinton's changing positions over the course of 30 years is not "only" that she can mask something. She has actually had coherent positions for years, though some have changed. He has not. Whatever one thinks about Clinton's changing positions, it's not due to ignorance.

You are also assuming too much if you think he has been doing his testing and cementing. Basically he was flapping in the wind until he brought Bannon on. Since then, if you see a conspiracy theory on Breitbart, infowars, freerepublic, etc -  a week later, Trump is trumpeting it. He's following the alt-right internet, not the other way around.

And as for the speech mannerisms, he could easily speak more 'presidential' if he chose to, but he's framing this election as the everyman vs a corrupt system, outsider vs establishment, David vs Goliath. The way he talks is connecting with people because from the very beginning, Trump has used the fact that he's not a polished politician to get further.

Do you have evidence for this? A video or something? Because I've been seeing him on TV in the NY media market since I was a kid and he's always spoken like an idiot.

Indeed, he got where he is based on luck. He inherited hundreds of millions of dollars and a successful business. He ran for president in a year in which the mood was perfect for a populist authoritarian to rally a nativist right-wing mob. He wouldn't have been successful in a normal election year. Note - Bernie Sanders was quite successful as well. Because the mood was not perfect, but it was good, for an anti-establishment left-wing mob. Sanders wouldn't have been as successful in most election years.

We can talk about how he's generated his wealth another time, but I'd like to talk about this election. When I asked about his luck, was it luck when he defeated 16 other candidates in the primary? Was it luck that he generated the highest vote count in the history of the Republican party? I don't think so. When you say that Trump wouldn't have done well in any other election year, maybe a case could be made that he has tremendously good timing.

He didn't generate his wealth.
Yes, it was luck when he defeated 16 other candidates in the primary. The right has been eating itself for the last decade. They set themselves up for it in the 70s and 80s. Until the 60s, African Americans were pretty evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. White southerners were split, but there were more Democrats. White northerners were split, but there were more Republicans. With the civil rights acts of the '50s and '60s, and the voting rights act, the votes went pretty cleanly along regional lines - northern representatives voted for, southern voted against. But the presidential candidates split along party lines: Nixon refused to help M.L.K. in Birmingham, Kennedy reached out. Johnson (and Rockefeller) supported the civil rights acts and Goldwater was against. Consequently, African Americans started moving toward party independence or Democratic registration. White southern Democrats started shifting to the Republican party. Nixon and, more strongly, Reagan, saw this as an opportunity to grow the Republican base, and pursued a "southern strategy" of racial dog-whistles and raising religious social issues to the fore in campaigning. Thus, social conservative and rural white people, particularly in the south, started voting Republican despite the fact that the Republican establishment supported policies that were economically damaging for much of that population. Over the next few decades, the Republican establishment more and more shamelessly went along with a growing nativist movement in their party, allowing the "base" to be attracted by what are now alt-right positions, while the establishment voted for more traditional conservative positions. The election of Obama and the success of the Conservative Coalition's construction of the Tea Party made a ripe situation for a Republican showdown.
Trump, in the meantime, has been dancing around running for president for over a decade. He did run before, but nobody remembers it because no one cared. They cared this year not because he's talented, but because the base wants to overthrow the establishment and he was the guy available. It could have been almost anyone, but he has the luck of already having money and fame, so he could pretty much just step in. Other people have to get party support to get a platform. He already had a platform. It wasn't strategic planning on his part. It was luck.

Trump is only a genius in the sense that Brian Wilson is a genius - it's a native talent, not a matter of intellect. Trump has a talent for self-promotion and sales. But I don't think he's particularly talented at that. He's failed repeatedly at his business ventures; he can't control his spending; he's robbed and lied and scammed his way through a 40 year career and yet has only gained about 7% on his inheritance - worse than I have done on what I started with - probably worse than most people on the board have done. He's done worse than index funds over the same period. He doesn't seem to be a particularly better sales person than the late night infomercial people. Every one in the country knows about those snuggly blanket-things. Whoever made those probably made more than 7%. I'm pretty sure anyone who inherited hundreds of millions of dollars and wanted to be famous could be. Is Paris Hilton a genius?
In the campaign, he's run through multiple advisors who have tried to teach him how to manage the general election but, again, he can't learn - his numbers have barely budged through the entire general election campaign. 42% He's got his natural audience, but he's been unable to expand it. Whatever "genius" he has, it's not linked to intelligence, and he has not "mastered" any "arts".

Tell you what, if Paris Hilton spends 18 months in politics, convinces millions and millions of Americans that she's the best leader for the country and ends up with a very real chance of being leader of the free world, then absolutely I'll consider her a genius. If we put money aside for the moment, if you don't think that he's good at self promotion, then I don't think there's anything I can say to convince you otherwise. Everyone in the country might know about snuggle blankets, but can you name the person that invented it?

In the campaign he has gone through a few advisors and like I said in a previous post, he'll use every tool he can to get ahead. Whatever works.

Paris Hilton doesn't fit the exact bill the alt-right wants. First, she's female. The alt-right is a men's movement, for the most part. Second, Trump and his sons, particularly the eldest, have been in contact with the alt-right before this election. The relationship really took off with Trump's birther sh*t. He was perfect for an existing movement, he had money, he had fame.

I don't suppose the snuggle person wants to be famous. If you consider fame a sign of genius, that brings me back to Paris Hilton. Do you believe she's a genius?

You haven't addressed why he has been unable to expand his base beyond the 42%.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqxQRkVgLUg
Depends what statistics you wanna pay attention to. I'm not tying my soul down to a CNN focus group, but I wouldn't put too much stock into polls and stats. It's like you said, this isn't a normal election year.

Just because the Republican party is in the throes of mania doesn't mean that statistics stopped working.

In fact, her positive ratings among her supporters have been increasing and her negative ratings among former undecided/third-party supporters have been decreasing. That would indicate that "defending" her is getting easier for anyone who has any desire to do so. The 42% would never want to defend her, of course.

Now there is a difference between Trump and Hillary supporters. Trump has been immunising his supporters from media attacks from the very beginning.  You know how he's had 'scandals' that would have taken down a politician every other year? It's not luck that he's still in the running. Trump has absorbed each of these attacks and managed to successful reframe it in every instance. His supporters are used to the non-stop attacks and have become resistant, like a superbug.
.

Why have his powers completely failed him beyond the existing movement he stepped into?

Because we associate political mobs with negative things: witch trials; Nuremberg rallies; tarring and feathering; pitchforks and torches, public stonings. Have you seen anyone hold the sorts of political rallies Trump's been having since WWII? It's not really done. We seem to have decided it's best to leave the whole crazed mob thing to sports and teen-idol audiences.

Did you get that vibe from Bernie's rallies? I know the media likes to paint Trump as dark (https://i.sli.mg/yZQ89U.jpg) but I don't see it. Now this isn't a stab at you but the whole Hitler angle is such a played out argument that it's become a joke (http://thedeclination.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/everyone-i-dont-like-is-hitler-the-emotional-childs-guide-to-political-discussion-1452799024.jpg).
Interestingly, I've heard from some people that Hillary gives off a cult leader vibe. Maybe it's the crazy eye's or the yelling, but some people draw comparisons to the leader of Heaven's Gate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8tMk-ZOx8

[/quote]
I got a similar vibe from Sanders' rallies. Not quite the same, because the prevalent mood wasn't anger and revenge. But demagoguery isn't cool, left or right.
Trump is more comparable to Mussolini than Hitler, but it doesn't make sense to dismiss a comparison simply because other people have made inapt comparisons to the object before. That doesn't render the object incomparable.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Wait...what was wrong with Bernie's rallies?