-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 09:16:20 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Carnival Of Sound
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 32   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration  (Read 252670 times)
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2016, 03:35:18 PM »

YES.

Obviously the kerfuffle with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the Trump-Preibus hot-and-cold relationship brought the role to the forefront, but you're absolutely right that it is primarily a fundraising (and sometimes logistics) position. That's why I don't want my congressman wasting his time doing that, what I consider the worst aspect of our entire goshdarn government.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: November 18, 2016, 06:17:31 AM »

Well, looking like a racist who couldn't get approved as a federal judge will be Attorney General, a hysterical Islamophobe will be National Security Advisor, and a racist, pro-torture, pro-domestic surveillance Islamophobe to lead the CIA. So this administration is looking pretty sweet...  Undecided
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
ForHerCryingSoul
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 344



View Profile WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 18, 2016, 09:24:53 AM »

Well, looking like a racist who couldn't get approved as a federal judge will be Attorney General, a hysterical Islamophobe will be National Security Advisor, and a racist, pro-torture, pro-domestic surveillance Islamophobe to lead the CIA. So this administration is looking pretty sweet...  Undecided
It's looking pretty white-nationalistic to me.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: November 18, 2016, 09:59:35 AM »

Well, looking like a racist who couldn't get approved as a federal judge will be Attorney General, a hysterical Islamophobe will be National Security Advisor, and a racist, pro-torture, pro-domestic surveillance Islamophobe to lead the CIA. So this administration is looking pretty sweet...  Undecided
It's looking pretty white-nationalistic to me.

Sometimes you have to distinguish campaign trail language from actual intent. And other times people just say what they mean. Usually I'm happy when people say what they mean, but in this case, I was hoping for the former phenomenon.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: November 22, 2016, 03:40:26 PM »

For the record, that means in the first three-plus days since the election, we have seen signals of:
  • A metaphorical rather than physical wall, probably supplemented with some smaller walls, without pushing for Mexico to pay. (Gingrich to supporters.)
  • Moderation on the ACA repeal and replace (Trump)
  • No prosecution of Sec. Clinton (Trump)
  • The typical use of paid lobbyists to fill (the 2,000 or so...) political positions within various agencies. Drain the swamp, eh? We now have a Big Food lobbyist overseeing Ag positions, a climate change denier at EPA, an oil lobbyist at energy, and a telecom lobbyist at FCC (to say nothing of rumors of Jamie Dimon to lead Treasury)

For better and worse (in certain ways), I expect the Trump administration to be basically a modern Republican administration, with the primary difference being a purely symbolic president with a penchant for going off script and saying things that cause problems for his staff and the country. But if people thought Cheney was too powerful, I don't think they'll care for the Pence-Trump dynamic. Remember the reported (but denied) incident of Trump, via Kushner, offering Kasich the opportunity to be VP and basically do all the work while Trump would "make America great again?" I think that's exactly the deal Pence is getting.

  • Questioning value of torture
  • Openness to remaining in Paris climate accord

But still acting like a petulant child about musicals-gone-wrong and the media in general.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: November 22, 2016, 07:09:47 PM »

For the record, that means in the first three-plus days since the election, we have seen signals of:
  • A metaphorical rather than physical wall, probably supplemented with some smaller walls, without pushing for Mexico to pay. (Gingrich to supporters.)
  • Moderation on the ACA repeal and replace (Trump)
  • No prosecution of Sec. Clinton (Trump)
  • The typical use of paid lobbyists to fill (the 2,000 or so...) political positions within various agencies. Drain the swamp, eh? We now have a Big Food lobbyist overseeing Ag positions, a climate change denier at EPA, an oil lobbyist at energy, and a telecom lobbyist at FCC (to say nothing of rumors of Jamie Dimon to lead Treasury)

For better and worse (in certain ways), I expect the Trump administration to be basically a modern Republican administration, with the primary difference being a purely symbolic president with a penchant for going off script and saying things that cause problems for his staff and the country. But if people thought Cheney was too powerful, I don't think they'll care for the Pence-Trump dynamic. Remember the reported (but denied) incident of Trump, via Kushner, offering Kasich the opportunity to be VP and basically do all the work while Trump would "make America great again?" I think that's exactly the deal Pence is getting.

  • Questioning value of torture
  • Openness to remaining in Paris climate accord

But still acting like a petulant child about musicals-gone-wrong and the media in general.
Here's my take on Trump: he is a narcissistic petulant child. He really thinks it's "unfair" when SNL makes fun of him or when the media writes negative stories about him. He really thinks of the world  - of everything in the world - in terms of winning and losing - it's all a zero-sum game to him. And he's amoral and thinks it's fine to lie and say really awful things if he thinks it will help him win. He really doesn't grasp that there's a bigger meaning to what a presidential candidate says and does. And he probably thinks about policy as simplistically as he talks about policy and understands government as little as he seems to.
But I think he's also flexible - see the amoralism above. If he perceives that he will "win" at the presidency by toning it down, he will. The positions he took on the campaign trail were a combination of opportunism - what he perceived would get votes - and opportunism - what policies will actually benefit him personally. He'll certainly try to keep the latter, but the former he will only keep if he perceives that he gains more by keeping them than by losing them.
He's also sexist and believes in weird racial theories. He goes on about genetics and about having a smart uncle and being german so he's genetically better than other people. And I think he's authentically an asshole.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: November 23, 2016, 05:53:03 AM »

That sums it up pretty accurately, I'd say.

By the way, for those who were all amped up about the Clinton Foundation and its purported corruption and conflict of interest, I hope you're paying attention to the discussion on the subject as it relates to Trump's businesses. And his sudden proclamations that it is fine for him to remain involved in his private business while running the country. Drain the swamp, indeed...
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: November 24, 2016, 05:33:56 AM »

A handful of new, uninspiring cabinet picks.
  • Gov. Haley for the UN Ambassador (actually the best pick so far of the cabinet, probably...shudder)
  • Betsy DeVos, who inherited her money and has been a GOP fundraiser/operative, primarily in funneling money out of public schools toward "school choice," for Sec. of Education. Ugh.
  • Dr. Carson for Sec of HUD. LOL. I can't imagine what in Carson's background qualifies him. (I don't think Haley has any particular relevant experience either, but at least she seems less ... hmm, what's the word? Stupid.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: November 25, 2016, 05:45:57 AM »

Well, it sure is refreshing watching the swamp drain--no more business as usual! Obama's Commerce Secretary, Hyatt Hotels heiress and major financial backer of Obama, will be on her way out, of course. And in her place, we'll get Wilbur Ross, major Trump campaign donor and billionaire known as the "king of bankruptcy"; and his deputy secretary will be Republican megadonor Todd Ricketts, whose father founded TD Ameritrade. Yes, the swamp is empty now. Things are being done differently! (Especially if by "differently" we mean swap out your megadonor heirs and heiresses for my megadonor heir and heiresses.)
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: November 26, 2016, 02:12:19 PM »

He has his own business - to liquidate that or to really blind-trust it would be appropriate and he should do it, but I can acknowledge it's a bigger deal than to put strict stock-and-bond investments into a trust, as most presidents have to do. However, so far, it doesn't appear that Trump's done that, or plans to do that even with his stock investments - for instance, he holds stock in multiple energy companies, including the a company that has 1/4 share of the Dakota Pipeline. Trump seems to be heading toward transparently using the presidency for personal enrichment, while president.

Separately, I wish the federal government would take some action to protect the Pipeline protesters and reconsider at least the position of the Pipeline, if not the whole thing.

Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: November 26, 2016, 02:16:26 PM »

He has his own business - to liquidate that or to really blind-trust it would be appropriate and he should do it, but I can acknowledge it's a bigger deal than to put strict stock-and-bond investments into a trust, as most presidents have to do. However, so far, it doesn't appear that Trump's done that, or plans to do that even with his stock investments - for instance, he holds stock in multiple energy companies, including the a company that has 1/4 share of the Dakota Pipeline. Trump seems to be heading toward transparently using the presidency for personal enrichment, while president.

Especially after the criticisms of the alleged use of the Sec of State position to influence Clinton Foundation donations, it is absolutely remarkable that he is publicly defending his own right to keep running his business while in office, even literally while in the office (i.e., on political calls). I hope every supporter is paying close attention and not missing the irony...I'd think they'd be outraged.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: November 26, 2016, 02:25:47 PM »

I wrote this at the same time you wrote your above comment - it does not pretend to be a response to your comment.

Trump's ties to fake news (and the Republican Party's ties to fake news in general) are multiple. Indeed, fake news is, for the most part, Republican-driven. It's not just Steve Bannon. Laura Ingraham and KellyAnne Conway's friend Floyd Brown, a long-time Republican operative, own companies that run right-wing fake news sites. A Trump PAC funds WorldNetDaily, a right-wing fake news site.
Independent fake news writers have reported that there isn't a sustainable market for Democrat/moderate/progressive fake news. They don't click on it enough. I expect traditional conservatives don't either, but they're a dying breed.
Basically, as I've mentioned before, the right-wing narrative is a fake narrative. What I frequently puzzle over is how many of them know that? I often read comments/blog posts in which the writer persists in the fake news based outrage after they've clearly read other comments that debunk the fake news. It often seems they KNOW the news is fake, but persist in talking about it and letting it affect their ideas.
This is something I've been puzzling over for some years. Now, (I firmly believe) fake news is responsible not just for a number of congress people and state government officials. It's responsible for the presidency. What happens that people embrace fake news, bogus conspiracy theories, unfounded "scandals", seemingly knowingly, and use those things to attack a candidate but ignore when their own candidate factually does the same thing?
What is the psychological deal here?
« Last Edit: November 26, 2016, 02:28:13 PM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: November 26, 2016, 05:48:36 PM »

It has been an interesting development. My gut feeling would be that it isn't inherently a conservative versus liberal phenomenon*, though I absolutely admit that it seems to slant heavily that way. So does that mean that at present there are more anti-establishment types on the right, people who are unwilling to trust institutions? If a left-leaning populism grows, would fake news grow correspondingly with them?



*I'd actually guess in a vacuum the opposite: conservatives tend to value and promote institutions more than liberals. But that's obviously not true in reality right now.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: November 26, 2016, 07:46:34 PM »

It has been an interesting development. My gut feeling would be that it isn't inherently a conservative versus liberal phenomenon*, though I absolutely admit that it seems to slant heavily that way. So does that mean that at present there are more anti-establishment types on the right, people who are unwilling to trust institutions? If a left-leaning populism grows, would fake news grow correspondingly with them?



*I'd actually guess in a vacuum the opposite: conservatives tend to value and promote institutions more than liberals. But that's obviously not true in reality right now.

Up until the 70s, I'd say your guess would be right about anti-public-institutionalism.  But since the early 80s, the right has been increasingly anti-government and I think establishment Republicans have willingly played along with the extreme, conspiracy, fake-news part of the base. And sometimes they've led it. But only part of it is anti-establishment. Republicans started doing suggestive push-polls in the 90s against each other. There was the famous McCain push-poll in 2000. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/11/mccain200411
The politics of scandal-mongering is really what I'm talking about. Particularly fake scandal mongering. Like the "Clinton body count" stories about all the "mysterious deaths surrounding the Clintons," including "some role" in JFK Jr.'s death. (Laura Ingraham specialty. Her site produced this video https://www.facebook.com/LifeZette/videos/356164274715005/
Or the false claim that so so evil George Soros owns the main voting-machine making company. Or all the other ridiculous Soros stories. So, he's a really good example. The right has the Koch brothers and the left has Soros. But the left doesn't have a bunch of "scandals" generated about the Koch brothers. They just support awful things. The right seems to need to make scandals. All the Soros scandals. Can't they just be scandalized that he's funding things they don't support, like I am about the Kochses (plural?)? Why do they need to scandalize everything?
Then there was the Clinton and Podesta pedophile ring based in some DC Pizza place. Here's Obama turning the white house US flag into a white flag of surrender on the White House logo: https://archive.fo/7RwN4 - that's via KellyAnne's colleague, Brown. He also informed us that "Muslims were ordered to vote Hillary" and that Clinton went on a "drug holiday" before the Vegas debate.
These are among the more ridiculous and extreme examples, but they are all examples of work by people who are either publicly recognized media figures or long-time paid high-level Republican campaign operatives. They aren't just internet cranks.
None of this is anti-institution. Just dirty campaigning. And widely accepted and passed-around on the internet dirty campaigning.
I have to think that a lot of the people who "share" these stories know they're fake. 400,000+ shares on the "Clinton body count" video. But the audience seems to revel in it. I don't understand it.



Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: November 27, 2016, 05:51:11 AM »

They're inconsistent in their anti-government attitudes, though. They're still disproportionately fond of the military. And as we watch BLM or during Occupy, conservatives were mostly on the sides of police. Even during the discussions of the Patriot Act, NSA, etc., it seems to me more conservatives were OK with illegal (or legal but extreme) surveillance than liberals. But I agree that their candidates rant and rail against the very institutions they're running for, and conservatives have those tropes of "he never had a real job, he has only been in Congress," etc.

And this is partly about institutions because it's the institution of the [legitimate] press they're ignoring or not trusting. Once freed from the real media, they can pick and choose the stories they like best.

Whether they really believe them, that's beyond me. I think a lot of people do, but then again, I'm a condescending asshole who thinks very little of most people.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
MonsterMash
Smiley Smile Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: November 27, 2016, 07:15:21 AM »

He has his own business - to liquidate that or to really blind-trust it would be appropriate and he should do it, but I can acknowledge it's a bigger deal than to put strict stock-and-bond investments into a trust, as most presidents have to do. However, so far, it doesn't appear that Trump's done that, or plans to do that even with his stock investments - for instance, he holds stock in multiple energy companies, including the a company that has 1/4 share of the Dakota Pipeline. Trump seems to be heading toward transparently using the presidency for personal enrichment, while president.

Separately, I wish the federal government would take some action to protect the Pipeline protesters and reconsider at least the position of the Pipeline, if not the whole thing.



I believe that is the real reason why Trump ran for president, we know he's probably not as rich as he claims to be hence the refusal to release his tax returns. As Putin has shown and why Trump probably admires him is that being president is a great way to make yourself rich Putin is rumoured to be worth billions despite not being a businessman and in theory a public servant. Trump could give federal construction contracts to the Trump organization or promise permits to companies in exchange for buying real estate from the Trump organization or influence banks to give his companies more favourable lending terms but threatening them with investigations and new regulations the possibilities of how to make money are endless provided you don't care about ethics and just want to make as much money as possible. If trump wasn't exceedingly wealthy before he came into the White House he will be once he leaves
« Last Edit: November 27, 2016, 08:38:42 AM by MonsterMash » Logged
MonsterMash
Smiley Smile Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: November 27, 2016, 07:17:34 AM »

He has his own business - to liquidate that or to really blind-trust it would be appropriate and he should do it, but I can acknowledge it's a bigger deal than to put strict stock-and-bond investments into a trust, as most presidents have to do. However, so far, it doesn't appear that Trump's done that, or plans to do that even with his stock investments - for instance, he holds stock in multiple energy companies, including the a company that has 1/4 share of the Dakota Pipeline. Trump seems to be heading toward transparently using the presidency for personal enrichment, while president.

Separately, I wish the federal government would take some action to protect the Pipeline protesters and reconsider at least the position of the Pipeline, if not the whole thing.



I believe that is the real reason why Trump ran for to become president, we know he's probably not as rich as he claims to be hence the refusal to release his tax returns. As Putin has shown and why Trump probably admires him is that being president is a great way to make yourself rich Putin is rumoured to be worth billions despite not being a businessman and in theory a public servant. Trump could give federal construction contracts to the Trump organization or promise permits to companies in exchange for buying real estate from the Trump organization or influence banks to give his companies more favourable lending terms but threatening them with investigations and new regulations the possibilities of how to make money are endless provided you don't care about ethics and just want to make as much money as possible. If Trump wasn't exceedingly wealthy before he came into the White House he will be once he leaves.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: November 27, 2016, 07:32:17 AM »

MonsterMash and le captain, good points and interesting thoughts. Thank you.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: November 27, 2016, 05:31:25 PM »

“In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

  - Pres. Elect Donald Trump, offering all the evidence one would expect him to provide. Which is to say, of course, none.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: November 27, 2016, 09:06:49 PM »

“In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

  - Pres. Elect Donald Trump, offering all the evidence one would expect him to provide. Which is to say, of course, none.
It was reported on his buddy Alex Jones' fake news and conspiracy site, InfoWars - 3,000,000 illegal votes! InfoWars' source was a guy who tweeted.

Our president-elect regularly spreads fake news.
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: November 27, 2016, 09:39:54 PM »

“In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

  - Pres. Elect Donald Trump, offering all the evidence one would expect him to provide. Which is to say, of course, none.
It was reported on his buddy Alex Jones' fake news and conspiracy site, InfoWars - 3,000,000 illegal votes! InfoWars' source was a guy who tweeted.

Our president-elect regularly spreads fake news.

He's going to muddy this talk about the popular vote into a complete stalemate, he operated like this throughout his whole campaign.

I bet within 2 weeks far fewer people will be talking about voting.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: November 28, 2016, 05:08:18 AM »

Of course they are. It will be two more weeks since the last election and the next won't be for quite a while. Naturally there willl be less talk about voting. And there's no existing competition to have a stalemate over. I really just don't know what you're talking about.
However, back to the fake news topic and your enthusiasm for Trump's manipulation. You have asserted that willingness to lie and manipulate will make him a good president. I believe they will contribute to him being a bad president. Is there a point with you at which lying to "win" becomes a bad thing? Do you feel like policy based on improving actual reality, not based on manipulation, matters at all? Do you think that honesty matters at all? Do you think it's OK if a president sows discord and lies constantly, as long as he "wins"?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: November 28, 2016, 05:11:39 AM »

Though here's an important voting topic that will be going on for years: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/opinion/voting-rights-in-the-age-of-trump.html
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: November 28, 2016, 05:46:49 AM »

I don't know if it's restricting voting rights, 1st amendment infringement, defunding public schools, or generally batshit-inflammatory military/security leaders that worries me most.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
bachelorofbullets
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: November 28, 2016, 06:26:37 AM »

Quote
Here's my take on Trump: he is a narcissistic petulant child. He really thinks it's "unfair" when SNL makes fun of him or when the media writes negative stories about him. He really thinks of the world  - of everything in the world - in terms of winning and losing - it's all a zero-sum game to him. And he's amoral and thinks it's fine to lie and say really awful things if he thinks it will help him win. He really doesn't grasp that there's a bigger meaning to what a presidential candidate says and does. And he probably thinks about policy as simplistically as he talks about policy and understands government as little as he seems to.
But I think he's also flexible - see the amoralism above. If he perceives that he will "win" at the presidency by toning it down, he will. The positions he took on the campaign trail were a combination of opportunism - what he perceived would get votes - and opportunism - what policies will actually benefit him personally. He'll certainly try to keep the latter, but the former he will only keep if he perceives that he gains more by keeping them than by losing them.
He's also sexist and believes in weird racial theories. He goes on about genetics and about having a smart uncle and being german so he's genetically better than other people. And I think he's authentically an asshole.

That's a pretty good description.  I like to view him as a dysfunctional, thin-skinned, poorly-formed adult.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 32   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.178 seconds with 22 queries.