QUOTE=New Era
Are you a voter? Seriously? Do you get to cast a vote in this election?
Q=NE
Interesting comments, but history does not support any of this.
I strenuously disagree, but we should set that discussion aside for another thread.
Q=NE
A very simplistic view of American government.
I agree.
Q=NE
The real seat of power is in the established departments and the special interests that have so much influence in Washington. Washington is run by K Street. Policy is driven by K Street. Nothing changes until this changes.
Again I agree wholeheartedly - and consider another Clinton term is least likely way to enact this change.
Instead, the Debbie WassermanSchultz's of the wold will keep getting better at entrenching their power.
Q=NE
The true power is not in our elected officials, its in those who make policy in those special interest organs in Washington.
The truer this feels, the sweeter the siren song of the belligerent outsider becomes.
Q=NE
Trump is a symbol alright. He's a symbol of the stupidity of the American people. He's a symbol of their deep seeded fears and hatred of things they don't understand. He's a symbol of the greed and the inequity in the system that exists in this country.
Trump is the embodiment of the supposed vitrues of American society. Maybe a modern day Hank Hill - this is what our society proclaims the ideal man should be.
Successful, ruthless, unapologetic, and selfish.
Modern day Ubermensch are guys like House MD, Bill Belichick, Kobe Bryant, Kanye West, Jamie Dimon, Steve Jobs - that's what success looks like in our society.
Among this class of sociopaths, Trump isn't the worst we could do.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
One one hand you have a party that has a platform based on inclusion and equality. On the other you have a platform based in bigotry. The former has a leader who while certainly not perfect has lived that type of platform for her entire adult life helping women, children and minorities. The latter has a complete buffoon as a leader that has continually said and done things his entire adult life that lines up with the misogynistic and bigoted platform the party has.
It's so insane that that's what it has basically come down to and that the Republican leadership isn't just horrified. This isn't new to Trump, this is decades. How do they ever expect to win with these people? Is the plan just to forfeit the big chair and then be childish in congress until the end of time?
No Gennifer Flowers at the debate, Trump's campaign says he wasn't serious and was making a point....that being that a 12 year old is more mature than Trump.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Trump is the embodiment of the supposed vitrues of American society. Maybe a modern day Hank Hill - this is what our society proclaims the ideal man should be.
Successful, ruthless, unapologetic, and selfish.
Modern day Ubermensch are guys like House MD, Bill Belichick, Kobe Bryant, Kanye West, Jamie Dimon, Steve Jobs - that's what success looks like in our society.
Is this an Ayn Rand thing?
These aren't the supposed virtues of American society. Hell, the most revered people in that society are volunteer soldiers.
I have one question about the email thing that I just don't get. Maybe someone can politely help me.
Quote:
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” he said, speaking at FBI headquarters.
What would she have had to do to be charged criminally?
Quote:
Comey said investigators had sifted through 30,000 emails Clinton provided to the State Department for public release and several thousand more determined to be work-related that Clinton did not turn over. They were looking, he said, at whether classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal system in such a way that it might have violated two federal statutes. One, he said, makes it a felony to mishandle classified information in an intentional or grossly negligent way, and the other makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
Isn't setting up your own server and not using a .gov email address and the State Department servers "knowingly" remove classified information from an appropriate system? What am I missing here?
What would she have had to do to be charged criminally?
Isn't setting up your own server and not using a .gov email address and the State Department servers "knowingly" remove classified information from an appropriate system? What am I missing here?
Nothing was removed from any State Department servers
I do not consider myself a Trump supporter, but I think this question targets me as an ambivilent 'voter.'
My biggest complaint of the American political system is inertia. Every incumbent gets re-elected, every expenditure is protected, and every subsidy becomes a right.
The Founders feared this type of cancer; feared that monied interests could calcify their largesse, feared a substantial standing army would prove irresistible to a Commander-In-Chief, feared corporations would be considered before principle or law.
Between two families, the Executive branch of the US government has been dominated for three decades. I'm counting Obama as part of their reign because when Obama defeated Hillary in '08, he appointed her to his senior cabinet and brought the gaggle of Clinton staffers into his administration - these people aren't inherently bad - they were likely all excellent hires (individually) but the cumulative effect was governmental authority has been dominated by a handful of people for decades. Even JEB! this cycle had to hire 99% of his family's staff. Again, not evil, but pernicious.
There are accusations against the Clinton Foundation for being a influence-peddling scam. I don't want to comment on those accusatins beyond this: it's totally possible. They had the means and opportunity. That appearance of impropriety is sufficient to require turnover.
In the NHL, coaches and GMs don't turn stupid/evil/incompetent and then get fired - they get fired because for organizations are well-served to have turn-over for numerous reasons, many of which also apply to POTUS; faĺling in love with a failed prospect (department), rivalry with another franchise (country), protecting their legacy (buyouts), and stubborn refusal to adapt to the evolutions of the game.
Trump is, symbolically, a rejection of the recalcitrant system - and is attractive (if only) as a rejection of this juggernaut.
I appreciate this response as there is so much substance for discussion and debate.
My question is this though: While I understand the desire to not have these monopolies of government, how is Trump really any different? Trump is the very embodiment of the establishment. He is someone that was born into wealth and spent his life playing the political games to continue his wealthy lifestyle. And while Clinton certainly is wealthy at this point, she has spent much of her life advocating for and helping those less fortunate. So if we were to put aside last names and who they would hire as staffers, wouldn't Clinton be the hands down choice as the candidate the founders would be more comfortable?
These aren't the supposed virtues of American society. Hell, the most revered people in that society are volunteer soldiers.
It's my, rather cynical, opinion of American virtues.
Wall Streeters, like Jamie Dimon and Wells Fargo, are billionaires that are above the law.
Volunteer firefighters that rescued people on 9/11 need to beg for medical coverage.
Haliburton gets no-bid contracts and unlimited funding from the US Gov't.
American soldiers that fight in Iraq commit suicide waiting for their requests to be evaluated.
What are we teaching our children to emulate?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gozer For This Useful Post:
My question is this though: While I understand the desire to not have these monopolies of government, how is Trump really any different? Trump is the very embodiment of the establishment. He is someone that was born into wealth and spent his life playing the political games to continue his wealthy lifestyle.
Trump is, fundamentally, a "no" vote. Just a big frack you.
Moreover, I think his role on reality TV played a really important part.
When the audience watch The Apprentice, they see a test that a dozen people are tasked with doing. The producers of the show present the events with a certain narrative - Meatloaf had a good idea, Gary Busey screwed it up, or whatever that episode is about.
The audience follows the unscripted events, and follows the clues the producers leave regarding the narrative of that episode. As an audience member, I see who screwed up, how they screwed up, and it is not obvious that anyone else sees what I see - until the dramatic end of the episode where Donald Trump (the omniscient) sees the narrative for what it really is - and comes to the same conclusion that I, the audience member, came to.
In this fashion, I have a visceral connection with The Donald - he and I see through all the bullpoop, cut through the noise, and he/we take care of business. We also have an emotional connection with the cast; in the case of Celebrity Apprentice, it's an emotional connection with the celebrity's charity. He/We care about [insert emotional attachment to charity here] too.
That's why Trump, instead of some other jackasss.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
It's my, rather cynical, opinion of American virtues.
Wall Streeters, like Jamie Dimon and Wells Fargo, are billionaires that are above the law.
Volunteer firefighters that rescued people on 9/11 need to beg for medical coverage.
Haliburton gets no-bid contracts and unlimited funding from the US Gov't.
American soldiers that fight in Iraq commit suicide waiting for their requests to be evaluated.
Well I can't argue with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
What are we teaching our children to emulate?
I don't know, you may be right. I just don't want this to be true, but it could be. The greediest and sleaziest do seem to get ahead, but I hope we aren't consciously telling the next generation to be as sleazy and greedy as possible.
Maybe we are. If they elect Trump, then, well, yeah.
What would she have had to do to be charged criminally?
She would have had to do something with intent. Receiving information is not a crime. What you do with it after reception is where the criminal act takes place. The issue here is the dissemination of information. You are not allowed to disseminate information to an uncleared individual. So Clinton receiving email on her server is not a criminal act, as she is cleared to receive information of these classifications. The proper thing to do once you receive the information is to leave it at rest, delete it, or report it. The wrong thing to do would be to further disseminate it to individuals not cleared for this information. Sending the information within her department, to people with access to that handling label, is okay. Sending that information to others outside of her department/agency is considered second party dissemination and considered a criminal act. It appears she did not disseminate information beyond her department or to others cleared to receive such information at that classification label level. Hence, no criminal charges.
Quote:
Isn't setting up your own server and not using a .gov email address and the State Department servers "knowingly" remove classified information from an appropriate system? What am I missing here?
At the time, it was completely legal and had been done numerous times before by people in many departments of the government, and at all levels of government. Obama passed an amendment that now makes it illegal to have a server for this purpose without having the appropriate security controls and data handling standards in place. So when Clinton did it, it was legal. Just as it was legal for everyone before that. Obama closed the loop hole in the law. Going forward it will be illegal, without the proper controls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobbles
I appreciate this response as there is so much substance for discussion and debate.
My question is this though: While I understand the desire to not have these monopolies of government, how is Trump really any different? Trump is the very embodiment of the establishment. He is someone that was born into wealth and spent his life playing the political games to continue his wealthy lifestyle. And while Clinton certainly is wealthy at this point, she has spent much of her life advocating for and helping those less fortunate. So if we were to put aside last names and who they would hire as staffers, wouldn't Clinton be the hands down choice as the candidate the founders would be more comfortable?
Probably not. Depends on which narrative of the founding fathers you chose to rely up. The historically accurate narrative, or the narrative that they were these infallible mythic men who pissed sweet win and #### lightning bolts. People forget the founding fathers were the monied class of the day. They were the elites. They were doctors and lawyers and the thinkers of their time. They may have seen something in Trump that would have liked. They may have respected him for his stance of thumbing his nose at the establishment.
If you judge the founders on the documents they drafted, they would have hated Trump, because he embodies the very things they were willing to let their fellow colonists die for. They would have looked at Trump's message and decided he was against the constitution they so careful crafted - well, ripped off from John Locke - and would want him ostracized from their elite group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
Trump is, fundamentally, a "no" vote. Just a big frack you.
And it is hilarious that he is running as a Republican. The party of conservatism and no change. The party who set up almost every bit of the system that people are outraged about is now the no vote. That isn't a big frack you, that is just fracked up. The fact that the people are buying this is beyond me.
Quote:
Moreover, I think his role on reality TV played a really important part.
That should be enough to disqualify him right there. This isn't a reality TV show. This is the leader of the free world.
Quote:
When the audience watch The Apprentice, they see a test that a dozen people are tasked with doing. The producers of the show present the events with a certain narrative - Meatloaf had a good idea, Gary Busey screwed it up, or whatever that episode is about.
The audience follows the unscripted events, and follows the clues the producers leave regarding the narrative of that episode. As an audience member, I see who screwed up, how they screwed up, and it is not obvious that anyone else sees what I see - until the dramatic end of the episode where Donald Trump (the omniscient) sees the narrative for what it really is - and comes to the same conclusion that I, the audience member, came to.
It was a game show. It was a loosely scripted game show. Anyone who thought this was an organic series of events doesn't have a grip on reality.
Quote:
In this fashion, I have a visceral connection with The Donald - he and I see through all the bullpoop, cut through the noise, and he/we take care of business. We also have an emotional connection with the cast; in the case of Celebrity Apprentice, it's an emotional connection with the celebrity's charity. He/We care about [insert emotional attachment to charity here] too.
That's why Trump, instead of some other jackasss.
This is what our democracy has come to? Vote Camacho?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
It's my, rather cynical, opinion of American virtues.
Wall Streeters, like Jamie Dimon and Wells Fargo, are billionaires that are above the law.
Volunteer firefighters that rescued people on 9/11 need to beg for medical coverage.
What is Trump going to do to change this? He has more in common with Dimon than the first responders.
Quote:
Haliburton gets no-bid contracts and unlimited funding from the US Gov't.
American soldiers that fight in Iraq commit suicide waiting for their requests to be evaluated.
Again, what is Donald Trump going to do to change this? He is siphoning money off from his campaign to his company coffers faster than Usain Bolt can earn gold medals. You honestly think he is going to be looking out for anyone but Donald Trump?
Quote:
What are we teaching our children to emulate?
Yes, who are we teaching out children to emulate? Someone who cares only for himself, or someone who works to better other people's lives?
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 09-25-2016 at 02:01 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
If you judge the founders on the documents they drafted, they would have hated Trump, because he embodies the very things they were willing to let their fellow colonists die for. They would have looked at Trump's message and decided he was against the constitution they so careful crafted - well, ripped off from John Locke - and would want him ostracized from their elite group.
Again, what is Donald Trump going to do to change this? He is siphoning money off from his campaign to his company coffers faster than Usain Bolt can earn gold medals. You honestly think he is going to be looking out for anyone but Donald Trump?
I'm not engaging in this partisan episode of Crossfire, I'm talking about why I think Trump is popular.
Trump is, fundamentally, a "no" vote. Just a big frack you.
Moreover, I think his role on reality TV played a really important part.
When the audience watch The Apprentice, they see a test that a dozen people are tasked with doing. The producers of the show present the events with a certain narrative - Meatloaf had a good idea, Gary Busey screwed it up, or whatever that episode is about.
The audience follows the unscripted events, and follows the clues the producers leave regarding the narrative of that episode. As an audience member, I see who screwed up, how they screwed up, and it is not obvious that anyone else sees what I see - until the dramatic end of the episode where Donald Trump (the omniscient) sees the narrative for what it really is - and comes to the same conclusion that I, the audience member, came to.
In this fashion, I have a visceral connection with The Donald - he and I see through all the bullpoop, cut through the noise, and he/we take care of business. We also have an emotional connection with the cast; in the case of Celebrity Apprentice, it's an emotional connection with the celebrity's charity. He/We care about [insert emotional attachment to charity here] too.
That's why Trump, instead of some other jackasss.
I saw an episode of Murdoch Mysteries once where I was certain it was the butler who did it. Turns out it was totally the butler who did it, and Murdoch nailed him. He and I were totally on the same wavelength.
If the guy who plays Murdoch ever runs for political office, he's getting my vote.
I saw an episode of Murdoch Mysteries once where I was certain it was the butler who did it. Turns out it was totally the butler who did it, and Murdoch nailed him. He and I were totally on the same wavelength.
If the guy who plays Murdoch ever runs for political office, he's getting my vote.
I think you're mocking me, but that's totally what I'm suggesting.
It's the same principle that cause people to fall in love with American Idol singers, Big Brother contestants, and countless other "reality" stars. A guy is drawn to being allied with someone, for whatever reason, and that gets reinforced week-after-week of genuine emotion and clever editing.
To be clear, I don't find this to be desirable - but I think it's true.
There is a perception-of-connection that just wasn't there for a guy like Romney.
I think you're mocking me, but that's totally what I'm suggesting.
It's the same principle that cause people to fall in love with American Idol singers, Big Brother contestants, and countless other "reality" stars. A guy is drawn to being allied with someone, for whatever reason, and that gets reinforced week-after-week of genuine emotion and clever editing.
To be clear, I don't find this to be desirable - but I think it's true.
There is a perception-of-connection that just wasn't there for a guy like Romney.
How can you recognise that you're being worked by scripted reactions and clever editing, and yet still fall for it? Seems quite foolish.
I think you're mocking me, but that's totally what I'm suggesting.
It's the same principle that cause people to fall in love with American Idol singers, Big Brother contestants, and countless other "reality" stars. A guy is drawn to being allied with someone, for whatever reason, and that gets reinforced week-after-week of genuine emotion and clever editing.
To be clear, I don't find this to be desirable - but I think it's true.
There is a perception-of-connection that just wasn't there for a guy like Romney.
I agree with you here that the trump persona that was cultivated through those shows where you and him were omnipotent helps him. I think it covers for a lot of his ridiculous statements because people assume the meaning of his statements to match theirs because their opinion and his have been the same for years of TV viewing.
This is much better than the Douglas Adams hypnosis theory.
