If you really want to defeat Trump, try a different strategy

[ecco]

"One guy believed to be" therefore T is a racist?

Audie, you are always so articulate. Where did you get "One guy believed to be"?

 

[Nakosis]

The one who defeats Trump would have to be just as much a political outsider and one who hates The Swamp as much as many Americans do. Someone who won't defend the policies of the establishment these past decades. It should be someone from the streets or from the sticks, no Ivy Leaguers or other products of pampered insularity.

I feel comfortable saying that he has this thing in the bag. Trump is an uncouth, mean-spirited, delusional narcissist hated by the media. So was Richard Nixon in 1972, and he won re-election that year in the biggest landslide in American history. Like Nixon's, Trump's appeal among his base is foolproof. Even the slightest accomplishment can be presented as evidence of his deal-making savvy. Every promise he has failed to keep — on health care, trade, immigration, The Wall — can be answered away by invoking the specter of his enemies. Unlike Nixon or any president in recent memory, he has the benefit of being able to count the leadership of both parties among the latter. The GOP is fine with this arrangement. Mitch McConnell really will allow Trump to badmouth him in front of the American people if it means not having a Democrat in the White House.

Why Trump will win in 2020

More than anything else, I suspect that the Democrats just don't know how to deal with Trump.

All of the tactics that should of normally worked, didn't.

 

[ecco]

I actually had a conversation earlier about why I support Pence over Trump:
It comes down to this:
Personally, I think Pence is dangerous but in a different way. Pence isn't an idiot. He knows how to make the right connections, speak tacitly, and how to pick his battles.
Things like defending the option of abortion and defending against religiously motivated anti-LGBT law will be much harder.
However, I'm pretty confident we are used to defending against this kind of religiously motivated legislation. We have experience, we know what to look for, and we have a battery of arguments to use. Defending against Pence will be much easier than defending against Trump.
Trump doesn't use facts. He doesn't appreciate them and neither does his fan base. Anything that's not toeing the line is 'fake news.' Even things which are regularly and easily dismissed as outright lies. You can't reason with him. And he can do so much worse. Including some of the very things we are worried about in a Pence presidency, like environmental apathy, putting more investment in Christian schools, legislation against LGBT (trans military ban).

Disparaging Climate Change because you want to appeal to coal miners is less dangerous than disparaging Climate Change because you believe, want and expect the world to end soon.

Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem because you want to stick it to Palestinians is not as dangerous as moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem because you want to initiate the End of Times.

Pence isn't an idiot. He knows how to ... speak tacitly.

That is precisely what makes him more dangerous.

 

[ecco]

More than anything else, I suspect that the Democrats just don't know how to deal with Trump.

Yep.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Disparaging Climate Change because you want to appeal to coal miners is less dangerous than disparaging Climate Change because you believe, want and expect the world to end soon.
.

Trump disparages Climage Change because he doesn't CARE if the world ends, so long as he gets the most out of his bottom line. He called Climate Change a Chinese conspiracy for goodness sake. The 'doing it for the coal miners' is just an excuse, one which Pence would use too. But the end result would be the same.

That is precisely what makes him more dangerous.

I said as much, that it would make him dangerous. But let's not discount the danger of what the opposite can and has done. Having no speaking skill, being obtuse and blunt, speaking without thinking that Trump has done has alienated us from our allies and made fragile situations worse.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The case at hand is "The Donald vs. The Swamp."

It is "Donald and the Swamp". They are on the same side. "The Swamp" is corruption, as in using your office to benefit yourself or those you are associated with. What Donald did was bring in the Swamp Monsters, people from big industry and those beholden to them that will financially benefit from deregulation and privatization. He brought in DeVos who is famous for replacing public schools with private schools that put profit before education. Trump brought in Pruitt who has been a long time lackey for the fossil fuel industry, even going as far as copying and pasting letters from oil companies and making them policy. Trump is giving every indication that he will benefit your country if you help him financially, such as the recent dealings with China. You have cabinet members galore getting luxury trips to wherever they want on the taxpayer's coin.

That's corruption. That's the Swamp.

The latest example was from another thread (Even in Europe the truth about Trump is out in bold print), where an article written by an Ivy Leaguer opined that Trump had "attacked the integrity of the Justice Department," as if we're supposed to believe that the DOJ had any integrity to begin with. Why should anyone care if Trump attacks "The Swamp," and why would someone go out of their way to defend it?

The Swamp was never civil servants working in federal agencies. Going after the DOJ because they are investigating you and your friends . . . that's Swamp Monster activity. Did you ever see Clinton or Obama going after the DOJ or the FBI like Trump has? Nope. Benghazi investigations went on for 4 years, and Obama didn't threaten to fire everyone in sight because of it. The Clinton email investigation went on for 2 years, and the Obama White House barely made a peep.

My suggestion would be, for those who wish to remove The Donald from office, would be to stop defending The Swamp. As difficult as this might be, it might mean having to let go of one's attachments or fondness towards Obama or Hillary or any other Swamp denizens and supporters.

Donald is the Swamp.

 

[Revoltingest]

Politics is always the lesser of two evils. Hillary was mine.
If I support Pence over Trump (which I am just for saying I'd rather him than Trump) and we fail to stop religious anti-abortion or anti-LGBT law than that'll be on me. And I will own up to it. Hopefully those who supported Trump will own up to the damage his racism, sexism and greed has caused in the midterms.

I predict that Trump supporters will apologize for his racism,
sexism & greed just as soon as Hillary supporters apologize for
her racism, sexism, greed, & war lust. Til then, it's a stand-off.

Whatever damage or good Trump does, it cannot affect judgement exercised on voting day.
Furthermore, there's no basis for comparison with Hillary's would-have-been record as Prez.
At this stage, it should be about....
- Fight policies one opposes.
- Support policies one likes.
- Work for better primary candidates in one's party.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know Sai Kung quite well.

I've never even heard of the guy.

 

[tytlyf]

Obama left a mess for Trump to clean up.

You do realize the republican establishment is lying to you right when they tell you that?

I'll play, what messy thing did Obama leave Trump?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I predict that Trump supporters will apologize for his racism,
sexism & greed just as soon as Hillary supporters apologize for
her racism, sexism, greed, & war lust. Til then, it's a stand-off.

Whatever damage or good Trump does, it cannot affect judgement exercised on voting day.
Furthermore, there's no basis for comparison with Hillary's would-have-been record as Prez.
At this stage, it should be about....
- Fight policies one opposes.
- Support policies one likes.
- Work for better primary candidates in one's party.

So people will continue to deflect and falsely equivocate to Hillary to support an objectively bad choice they won't own up to. Yes, I understand that.
I can do both criticize those past mistakes and go forward with the new candidates when they appear.

 

[Revoltingest]

So people will continue to deflect and falsely equivocate to Hillary to support an objectively bad choice they won't own up to. Yes, I understand that.

I don't think you mean "equivocate", if you mean to make "equivalent to".
They were both objectively bad choices IMO.
(Although I know some people actually liked either candidate.)
We only disagree about which was worse.

I can do both criticize those past mistakes and go forward with the new candidates when they appear.

When presented with 2 bad choices, & great complexity of outcome,
there's no way to discern whether choosing the loser over the winner
would've turned out any better.
It's a bit like complaining about how one rolled the dice.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I don't think you mean "equivocate", if you mean to make "equivalent to".
They were both objectively bad choices IMO.
(Although I know some people actually liked either candidate.)
We only disagree about which was worse.

When presented with 2 bad choices, & great complexity of outcome,
there's no way to discern whether choosing the loser over the winner
would've turned out any better.
It's a bit like complaining about how one rolled the dice.

I meant equivocate to. And I don't agree with the dice metaphor, because while Hillary had some unknowns I could clearly see where the dice were loaded for Trump being a bad idea. Maybe other people didn't see it. Maybe they weren't looking. Maybe they were too focused on just one side of the dice they didn't want to see at the expense of other equally important issues.
But I knew greed would prevent Trump from making intelligent ecological policy whereas Hillary was pushing for a more intelligent ecological policy. I knew having no tact or speaking ability would cause Trump to cut us off from allies when I knew Hillary at least would keep SOME of them. I knew Trump would be a bad call for women and LGBT whereas at least Hillary's voting record had changed positively toward them over the years. I knew Trump would be all for economic policy which uplifts the rich, removes assets from the poor, and shortens the list of middle-income Americans. I knew Trump didn't have a goddamn clue how to reform healthcare, he just wanted to undo what Obama did no matter what the consequences of those who came to rely on it. I knew Trump would **** off Mexico with racist comments, and I hope that they'll hold off from cutting us off from the trade we benefit from and they don't need while we get someone who is a lot more like Hillary than Trump. Because Hillary might be shrewd, but she's not dumb. Trump is.

 

[Revoltingest]

I meant equivocate to. And I don't agree with the dice metaphor, because while Hillary had some unknowns I could clearly see where the dice were loaded for Trump being a bad idea. Maybe other people didn't see it. Maybe they weren't looking. Maybe they were too focused on just one side of the dice they didn't want to see at the expense of other equally important issues.

Would you say that only your view is reasonable?

But I knew greed would prevent Trump from making intelligent ecological policy whereas Hillary was pushing for a more intelligent ecological policy. I knew having no tact or speaking ability would cause Trump to cut us off from allies when I knew Hillary at least would keep SOME of them. I knew Trump would be a bad call for women and LGBT whereas at least Hillary's voting record had changed positively toward them over the years. I knew Trump would be all for economic policy which uplifts the rich, removes assets from the poor, and shortens the list of middle-income Americans. I knew Trump didn't have a goddamn clue how to reform healthcare, he just wanted to undo what Obama did no matter what the consequences of those who came to rely on it. I knew Trump would **** off Mexico with racist comments, and I hope that they'll hold off from cutting us off from the trade we benefit from and they don't need while we get someone who is a lot more like Hillary than Trump. Because Hillary might be shrewd, but she's not dumb. Trump is.

You list your reasons that Trump would be bad, & that Hillary would be good, but
I saw it differently, ie, reasons that each would be better or worse than the other.
I weighed those pros & cons for each.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You do realize the republican establishment is lying to you right when they tell you that?

I'll play, what messy thing did Obama leave Trump?

Well for starters he didn't have to completely nosedive into dismantling the entire healthcare system creating the obvious problems that we have now. You gotta pass it to see what's in it...

His involvement in expensive shovelware business ventures that went nowhere except incurring huge losses.
Solyndra anyone?

The doubling of the national debt while under his watch.



Sad thing is I liked many of his ambitions, but the way it was implemented made things so much worse and difficult that you can't see this as anything else but a mess.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Would you say that only your view is reasonable?

I believe there's no reasonable excuse for voting for Trump, yes. Having reasons and being reasonable are not the same thing, imo.

But I think we've exhausted the back and forth until another day.

 

[Audie]

Audie, you are always so articulate. Where did you get "One guy believed to be"?

Your post, the guy with the car.

 

[Audie]

I feel comfortable saying that he has this thing in the bag. Trump is an uncouth, mean-spirited, delusional narcissist hated by the media. So was Richard Nixon in 1972, and he won re-election that year in the biggest landslide in American history. Like Nixon's, Trump's appeal among his base is foolproof. Even the slightest accomplishment can be presented as evidence of his deal-making savvy. Every promise he has failed to keep — on health care, trade, immigration, The Wall — can be answered away by invoking the specter of his enemies. Unlike Nixon or any president in recent memory, he has the benefit of being able to count the leadership of both parties among the latter. The GOP is fine with this arrangement. Mitch McConnell really will allow Trump to badmouth him in front of the American people if it means not having a Democrat in the White House.

Why Trump will win in 2020

More than anything else, I suspect that the Democrats just don't know how to deal with Trump.

All of the tactics that should of normally worked, didn't.

The way to deal with trump would be to like, field a candidate!!??

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe there's no reasonable excuse for voting for Trump, yes. Having reasons and being reasonable are not the same thing, imo.

But I think we've exhausted the back and forth until another day.

Let's each just agree that the other is an unreasonable, civilization destroying, poopy head.

 

[Audie]

I've never even heard of the guy.

Haha. Sai Kung is a beautiful semi-rural
district of Hong Kong. Look up google
images!

 

[Revoltingest]

Haha. Sai Kung is a beautiful semi-rural
district of Hong Kong. Look up google
images!

Looks lush!