Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Prime2]

I can't believe the Dems actually got Morgan Freeman to narrate's Hillary's silly introductory video. Comically cliche

I would have preferred Rosa Parks.

[Prime2]

Dogs have teeth. This unmistakably separates them from Alabama

I'd add humping to your list. Contrary to popular belief, a dog will NOT hump everything.

[AlabamAlum]

Wild Hoss and OP are quite the tag team of smack downs.

No, really. Clever AND funny. Really. GREAT stuff.

Two peas in a pod. Good job, guys.

[Jeff Buchanan]

It's pretty clear in this thread we have two ardent Trump supporters. Before I ask them about their views of Donald Trump, a little context.

Trump's character is not an unknown. He has been a public figure for decades. Based on what we know of him I think it is fair to say he is frequently not in command of the facts and tends to see and judge issues superficially rather than to the depth necessary to fully understand them. He is quick to judge and to speak, rather than to be contemplative. This characteristic often leads to misstatements of fact and interpretation of issues that are easily shown to be incorrect. He can be abrupt and rude where tact is called for.

Feel free to take issue with this characterization but I would ask what is it about Donald Trump that allows you to overlook what, to me, among others here, are character traits that would seem to quickly eliminate him as a Presidential candidate. I get the popularity of some of the populace themes that he is articulating. I even agree with him on some issues.

As a pragmatist, I don't see any way we would not have four years of an acrimonious relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government and strained relationships between allies and increasing tensions with our foes if Trump is elected President. At home we would likely see an extension of the current block for political gain and do nothing congress because he can be a polarizing figure.

I see him as a dictatorial authoritarian who, rather than understanding the value of negotiation and compromise on the national and international front, would be more likely to bully and shame to advance his personal, Presidential agenda.

I just don't get how this man can be supported and defended as a reasonable candidate to occupy the White House and carry out the duties of President of the United States. I'd like to know why you two can.

[hack]

LOL. Yes, well done. I hadn't had an appreciation for the more granular differences between Alabama fans and dogs.

Geezer, I dunno what to tell you. I think paragraphs 2 and 3 of your reply highly selective. You are suspicious of what you want to be and accepting of what you want to be. We all risk that when talking about our preferences, I guess, and we should do our best to keep that type of selectivity at a minimum. I don't think Hanni nailed anything. I'm pretty skeptical of the amount of information he's working with, and what he wants to do with the information he has and understands. WRT the press conference specficially, Trump admitted saying it. His excuse is that he was being sarcastic. That's another whole ball of wax, but when the man himself admits that the words that came out of his mouth match the tape of the event, it's beyond me why you're still here saying he didn't, or that he meant something else, and paraphrasing to leave out one key word. Again, if we can't agree on the basic and observable facts, I don't see how we can have a discussion.

[Hannibal]

It's pretty clear in this thread we have two ardent Trump supporters. Before I ask them about their views of Donald Trump, a little context.

...He can be abrupt and rude where tact is called for.

I had a discussion with my wife about this subject last night. The rules of "polite" discourse, for decades now, have greatly favored Democrats. For my whole adult life, reasonable discourse about race, religion, etc has been shut down by the Left. This had to be broken. I like the expression that Talent used earlier -- "recalibrating the center". Do I wish that I could take about two thirds of Trump's agenda and implant it into a traditional politician who speaks with more of a filter? Sure. But the problem is that the filter would filter out all of the good and you would end up with a worthless milquetoast like Rubio or Kasich. The conditions of American politics were such that the only palatable candidate for a guy like me was a guy like Trump. Republicans have been gutless, Stockholm Syndrome-infected pussies. It has cost them elections and when they have won elections, they haven't gotten anything done at all because they back down the second that they get punched in the mouth. That is why Trump's brash, obnoxious personality is a positive, rather than a negative, to many people including myself.

I am sick and tired of America being the world's feeding trough and I'm sick and tired of America being the world's policeman without recompense. Right now there is what economists call a massive "free rider" problem. Trump recognized it three decades ago. The only dividend that we have gotten from this is hate and scorn. I want somebody with fighting instinct to be President. I want America to be a selfish country (like everyone else). Even Reagan was somewhat naive in this area. An "America first" policy is long overdue.

Also, for a guy with supposedly such horrible character, there are surprisingly few people who have known him who speak badly about him. And that's not because the media wouldn't be sympathetic to those people. Best I can tell, his employees have loved him. His business career doesn't paint a picture of him being a thoughtless ogre.

Feel free to take issue with this characterization but I would ask what is it about Donald Trump that allows you to overlook what, to me, among others here, are character traits that would seem to quickly eliminate him as a Presidential candidate. I get the popularity of some of the populace themes that he is articulating. I even agree with him on some issues.

As a pragmatist, I don't see any way we would not have four years of an acrimonious relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government and strained relationships between allies and increasing tensions with our foes if Trump is elected President. At home we would likely see an extension of the current block for political gain and do nothing congress because he can be a polarizing figure.

I can understand this concern. I view Trump's personality as a double-edged sword, and there is undoubtedly a downside to it. But he has prospered with that personality and he has worked successfully with people to make deals and find win-win situations. He clearly has some level of judegement. It's a risk-reward relationship and I see the rewards as vastly outweighing the risks at this point. I won't deny that those risks exist. i wish that they were smaller.

What relationship between the legislation and executive branches is there to ruin at this point? Obama just does everything by executive order now. Trump, if anything, is more likely to engage in good faith negotiations with Congress than any other candidate in this race. It's one of the reasons why some hardcore Conservatives don't like him.

I see him as a dictatorial authoritarian who, rather than understanding the value of negotiation and compromise on the national and international front, would be more likely to bully and shame to advance his personal, Presidential agenda..

This -- I've got a huge problem with this statement. For a variety of reasons. The authoritarian instincts in this country today reside on the Left and it shows up in a variety of ways:

• The Democrat prosecutors that want to make it a crime to deny the existence of man-made global warming.
• Obama's rampant, unprecedented executive order abuse. Can Trump be any worse?
• The targeting of Tea Party groups by the IRS
• The criminalization of "hate" speech in Europe. This is something that will happen in the US if the Left gets their way.
• The aloof, authoritatian nature of the EU, an institution that the Left defended endlessly leading up to the Brexit.
• Hillary Clinton's thinly-veiled threats as a Senator to pull the FCC licenses of TV stations that ran an Osama bin Laden movie that portrayed Bill's handling of the situation negatively.
• The numerous attempts by Democrats to shut down talk radio via FCC "fairness doctrine" rules
• Decades of political correctness on college campuses, which included speech codes that were unconstitutional. Here's a thought, if the Liberals get a 7-2 majority on the Supreme Court, would they still deem these speech codes to be unconstitutional?
• The USSR-loving, Socialist candidate in the Democrat party getting almost half of the vote

Need I go on?

And then there's the issue of demographics. If you have concerns about the future of freedom and democracy, then you should be falling over yourself to vote for Trump, because the demographics are shifting in favor of people who don't value these concepts. That was ultimately the tipping point for me. We're one illegal immigrant amnesty bill away from permanent one party rule.

[iam416]

IMO -- actually, IM unconsidered O, Hannibal does as good a job defending Trump as anyone. Trump strikes me differently than he strikes Hanni, but his reasons for supporting Trump are clearly laid out and, IMUO, they're entirely defensible.

I disagree with him on a number of points, but I chalk it up to reasonable minds can differ and/or go fuck themselves.

[hack]

Good post. Not very much I agree with, and I think you could read up on a whole bunch of things and that would help, but that's an excellent presentation of your own thoughts, so thanks for taking the time.

Here's what looks to me like a very good moving along of the ball on this Russia angle: https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-ru...legal-analysis. TL;DR:


Question #1: Is Donald Trump an Agent of a Foreign Power Targetable Under FISA?
Answer: Not On the Current Record.

Question #2: Is Trump an Agent of a Foreign Principal Under FARA?
Answer: Not on the current record.

Question: Is Russia Actively Supporting Trump’s Candidacy?
Answer: Damn Straight!

Question: Is Trump a “Useful Idiot” for Putin?
Answer: Yup.

[Mike]

Talent, I am aware of your unconsidered opinion but not fully aware.

[froot loops]

Again, there is nothing to prevent the GOP from courting the African American vote or the Latino vote. The amnesty one party rule argument has been pure nonsense.

[Hannibal]

Again, there is nothing to prevent the GOP from courting the African American vote or the Latino vote. The amnesty one party rule argument has been pure nonsense.

They have been trying to court this vote for decades, being politically correct, not breaking taboos, and praying that nobody calls them a "racist". It hasn't worked and it never will until Political Correctness and identity politics have been destroyed and people identify as "Americans" instead of their race. There is almost nobody trying to make this happen and, if anything, people are more strongly encouraged than ever to identify demographically.

The Republicans supported amnesty 1.0 in the 1980s. Then George Bush I got a lower percentage of the Hispanic vote than Reagan received. McCain supported amnesty 2.0. How much of the Hispanic vote did he receive? Bush II pandered his ass off and he couldn't break 50% of the Hispanic vote, and he got less than 10% of the black vote in 2000 and 11% in 2004.

[iam416]

I've said it before, but the AA vote fascinates me. They are so party loyal. It, e.g., strikes that a community that is so faith-based can be so reliably D. But, that's for another day.

As you noted, the Ds will always, always, always play up race. They called McCain racist. They called Romney racist. They call every R racist. And they'd call me racist for being against affirmative action and ardently for MLK's "content of character not color of skin" approach.

[froot loops]

1. What did George W. Bush do that you consider pandering? Do you think calling Mexicans rapists and criminals a better approach?

2. It seems Hannibal argues that unless you get 50 percent of the Latino vote it doesn't matter. If you are getting 10 percent versus 40 percent it makes a Yuuge difference.

[Hannibal]

Question: Is Trump a ?Useful Idiot? for Putin?
Answer: Yup.

You don't want to go there, dude. Trust me.

[Hannibal]

1. What did George W. Bush do that you consider pandering? Do you think calling Mexicans rapists and criminals a better approach?

2. It seems Hannibal argues that unless you get 50 percent of the Latino vote it doesn't matter. If you are getting 10 percent versus 40 percent it makes a Yuuge difference.

It's more like a range of 30-40 percent. And if you have to add 10 million new Hispanic voters to gain that percentage then it is a massive net loss. It's simple math and it boggles the mind that mainstream Repubilcans are too stupid to see it. That is assuming that it even works. McCain was pro-amnesty. He got 31% of the Hispanic vote. Romney was as polite and non-threatening as they come and he got 27% of the Hispanic vote.