Ask me in another thread.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would you Vote for Trump?
- Thread starter Tomorrows_Child
- Start date
Ask me in another thread.
Big donors like Donald Trump.
Exactly!
Why vote for the tool when you can vote for the carpenter!
A tool can be used by anyone willing to buy it, making it predictably dangerous.
The carpenter has more autonomy.
Sometimes it is better to get a professional. Rather than an "outsider" carpenter. Sometimes DIY can be unpredictably dangerous.
Stretching the analogy even further, I'd rather that my carpenter not be a serial war monger.
Sometimes it is better to get a professional. Rather than an "outsider" carpenter. Sometimes DIY can be unpredictably dangerous.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Revoltingest - I'll admit I'm not excited about Hillary. However, I'm still having a hard time understanding why Trump isn't just a more extreme version of all the negative adjectives you've leveled at Clinton. Yes, the idea of a Clinton presidency is horrifying to those who oppose her but it seems to me many of them (and you) are in denial about Trump - he's not the savior from Clinton that some so desperately want.
She's owned by Wall Street donors? Trump IS a Wall St donor. Commercial real estate - but same circles as the hedge funds and industrialists of Wall St, e.g. Trump wants to make billionaire hedge fund manager Carl Icahn his Treasury Secretary. While Trump does want to get rid of the carried interest loophole to tax rich hedge fund managers more, I'm unaware that he's proposed anything else that would truly offend Clinton's Wall St donors, e.g. break up the big banks, tighter risk controls or greater oversight, etc. Trump does want to repeal Dodd-Frank, which Wall St has been trying to do for some time.
She has to raise money ... yes, and as phantome profane pointed out the problem there is she has to raise it from people like Trump. It's odd to argue that, if a single rich donor like Trump cuts out the middle men and runs for office directly, that is somehow superior to a candidate raising money from many rich donors (why?) Trump has substantial business interests (as he constantly reminds us) and has admitted to (in fact brags about) using the political system to advance those interests. Why should we expect Candidate Trump to be motivated by what's best for America when Donor Trump was motivated by what's best for Trump? Again he literally held a press conference displaying his wares (Trump steaks, Trump wine, etc.)
She was once an attorney ... Okay, that bothers you for some reason. But Trump thinks suing people is "great". As President, he wants to make it easier to sue newspapers that he thinks have personally wronged him for libel - Libertarians ought to know where that road leads. In addition, Trump has threatened a number of lawsuits in this election (against the Louisiana GOP and against Kasich). Trump relishes suing people and using the threat of lawsuits more than any other candidate, including Clinton.
Clinton is a hawk because she wants to "obliterate Iran"? Well here's what she actually said:
"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel. ... "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said ,,, "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said. "That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said." Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422
Trump OTOH appears to be just as hawkish as Clinton and arguably far more so. He "might have gone into" Syria and Obama should have gone in with "tremendous force" against Assad; let's tear up the deal with Iran, bomb Iraq's oil fields to hurt ISIS, let's have more torture, kill the families of suspected terrorists, won't take war with China off the table, won't take nuking Europe off the table, etc. etc. Compared to Clinton he's not just a hawk, he's psychotic.
You say Clinton is sexist. Really, that's a reason to vote for Trump? Not sure that one should even be dignified with a response.
She's owned by Wall Street donors? Trump IS a Wall St donor. Commercial real estate - but same circles as the hedge funds and industrialists of Wall St, e.g. Trump wants to make billionaire hedge fund manager Carl Icahn his Treasury Secretary. While Trump does want to get rid of the carried interest loophole to tax rich hedge fund managers more, I'm unaware that he's proposed anything else that would truly offend Clinton's Wall St donors, e.g. break up the big banks, tighter risk controls or greater oversight, etc. Trump does want to repeal Dodd-Frank, which Wall St has been trying to do for some time.
She has to raise money ... yes, and as phantome profane pointed out the problem there is she has to raise it from people like Trump. It's odd to argue that, if a single rich donor like Trump cuts out the middle men and runs for office directly, that is somehow superior to a candidate raising money from many rich donors (why?) Trump has substantial business interests (as he constantly reminds us) and has admitted to (in fact brags about) using the political system to advance those interests. Why should we expect Candidate Trump to be motivated by what's best for America when Donor Trump was motivated by what's best for Trump? Again he literally held a press conference displaying his wares (Trump steaks, Trump wine, etc.)
She was once an attorney ... Okay, that bothers you for some reason. But Trump thinks suing people is "great". As President, he wants to make it easier to sue newspapers that he thinks have personally wronged him for libel - Libertarians ought to know where that road leads. In addition, Trump has threatened a number of lawsuits in this election (against the Louisiana GOP and against Kasich). Trump relishes suing people and using the threat of lawsuits more than any other candidate, including Clinton.
Clinton is a hawk because she wants to "obliterate Iran"? Well here's what she actually said:
"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel. ... "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said ,,, "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said. "That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said." Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422
Trump OTOH appears to be just as hawkish as Clinton and arguably far more so. He "might have gone into" Syria and Obama should have gone in with "tremendous force" against Assad; let's tear up the deal with Iran, bomb Iraq's oil fields to hurt ISIS, let's have more torture, kill the families of suspected terrorists, won't take war with China off the table, won't take nuking Europe off the table, etc. etc. Compared to Clinton he's not just a hawk, he's psychotic.
You say Clinton is sexist. Really, that's a reason to vote for Trump? Not sure that one should even be dignified with a response.
averageJOE
zombie
Please tag or quote me so that I'm alerted to such posts.
I don't see everything, & only found this one inadvertently.
No....I've also used nouns & more elaborate descriptions to explain why he's different.
He isn't a "more extreme" version.....or any version of Clinton.
What you might haughtily call "denial" might simply be our different weighting of the candidates' various traits, both positive & negative.
Unlike most, I've explained why I favor him over her, while also pointing out my many differences with him.
I see him, warts & all.
I don't want him as prez.....but I face a limited choice between 2 unattractive but very different candidates.
I've pointed it out before (although Trump is more of a real estate mogul than a Wall St type).
I spoke of preferring to vote for the one who wields the tool, over voting for the tool itself.
But I'd also expect him to be more independent from them than is Hillary.
They become judges & politicians.....essentially it's a vast fleet of foxes in charge of all the hen houses.
This is a problem that few in the country will see. Most don't deal with civil (& criminal) matters often.
They buy into the myth that our justice system is fair & above board. I see otherwise in many many court cases.
So I know that few will understand why this is important to me.
But he is a better choice than Clinton, who is on the benefiting side of legal corruption.
What I find so heinous is not that she promises appropriate retaliation as a deterrent (something I'd find reasonable),
but that she promises "obliteration". I find this over-reaction significant, particularly in light of her voting record on
starting & continuing the incredibly wasteful, deadly, counter-productive, & expensive wars. Moreover, such speech
harms our ability to assure Iran that we're no longer the very threat which necessitates their having nukes.
Remember that we overthrew their democratically elected leader in order to install the Shah.
Remember that we supplied Iraq with WMDs for their war which killed over 1,000,000 Iranians.
The big difference is that he might be a hawk, while Hillary has an extensive record to show that she is a hawk.
Her record of sexist remarks by herself & her supporters is problematic, but is at the bottom of my list.
To dismiss it with an unstated argument of obviousness?
I don't see everything, & only found this one inadvertently.
Only adjectives?
No....I've also used nouns & more elaborate descriptions to explain why he's different.
He isn't a "more extreme" version.....or any version of Clinton.
In denial, eh?
What you might haughtily call "denial" might simply be our different weighting of the candidates' various traits, both positive & negative.
Unlike most, I've explained why I favor him over her, while also pointing out my many differences with him.
I see him, warts & all.
I don't want him as prez.....but I face a limited choice between 2 unattractive but very different candidates.
This is no revelation.
I've pointed it out before (although Trump is more of a real estate mogul than a Wall St type).
I spoke of preferring to vote for the one who wields the tool, over voting for the tool itself.
I'd expect him to have some interests in common with Wall St.
But I'd also expect him to be more independent from them than is Hillary.
Again, this is about his being more independent than she.
Lawyers have corrupted our legal system for their own benefit at the expense & to the detriment of everyone else.
They become judges & politicians.....essentially it's a vast fleet of foxes in charge of all the hen houses.
This is a problem that few in the country will see. Most don't deal with civil (& criminal) matters often.
They buy into the myth that our justice system is fair & above board. I see otherwise in many many court cases.
So I know that few will understand why this is important to me.
Trump is a poor choice for legal reform.
But he is a better choice than Clinton, who is on the benefiting side of legal corruption.
I already knew the whole quote.
What I find so heinous is not that she promises appropriate retaliation as a deterrent (something I'd find reasonable),
but that she promises "obliteration". I find this over-reaction significant, particularly in light of her voting record on
starting & continuing the incredibly wasteful, deadly, counter-productive, & expensive wars. Moreover, such speech
harms our ability to assure Iran that we're no longer the very threat which necessitates their having nukes.
Remember that we overthrew their democratically elected leader in order to install the Shah.
Remember that we supplied Iraq with WMDs for their war which killed over 1,000,000 Iranians.
I find Trump risky in this respect too.
The big difference is that he might be a hawk, while Hillary has an extensive record to show that she is a hawk.
Every trait a candidate has will be weighted against the other side.
Her record of sexist remarks by herself & her supporters is problematic, but is at the bottom of my list.
Then why bring it up if you don't want to discuss it?
To dismiss it with an unstated argument of obviousness?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Sorry. I'm a bit confused by the new layout and mechanics of the forum. Good to "see" you again, by the way, it's been a long time.
Yes, I think you are right. Fair enough.
I guess it depends on how you define independent. He is more independent of her lobbies, she is more independent of the Trump Lobby. I can imagine Clinton doing something that might upset her donors. I can't imagine Trump giving an inch for the good of the country if it would in any way detriment the wealthy financier who is funding Trump's campaign.
True, he might not be a hawk - he might be even more bloodthirsty, if his statements are any guide.
Honestly, I wanted to confirm I understood your point correctly, that Clinton's sexism is one reason to vote Trump, because it is so difficult to believe. If that was your point I didn't think a response was necessary since you (and anyone else reading) probably already know that I'm going to quote some sexist things Trump has said, which aren't going to be a revelation (not that any of my post was).
Thank you for humoring me by responding, I think you made some good points.
Last edited:
How people describe his non-public speech suggests that he's milder & nicer than his public persona.
I assume both sides are who he is.
I'm going by several windows into her soul....
- Her astounding claim that women are the primary victims of war because they lose their male family members to combat.
- Accepting (without criticizing) the virulent sexist support from Gloria Steinem & Madeleine Albright.
- Disingenuously playing the gender card.
Humoring you?
No, no.....this is a discussion.
You're being thoughtful & a gentleman......er, gentlehuman.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Hopefully he won't pick the side that's way more hawkish than any other candidate.
Hillary was talking to women in El Salvador in the aftermath of the Salvadoran Civil War. During that war a number of horrifying one-sided "battles" occurred where soldiers massacred women and children. I guess the construction of her sentence stretches logic a bit, suggesting women are "the" primary victims in every war. Her statement would be especially jarring if (for some reason) I had an enormous chip on my shoulder about how unfairly women have treated men for so many centuries and how many war crimes women have committed against male non-combatants. But I don't think this was an intentional dig at men, I think it was motivated by a deep concern for women, who have often been particularly vulnerable and powerless victims of war.
Compare that to Trump, whose sexist statements have nothing to do with concern for a victimized group. Trump attacks women specifically and intentionally, out of pure malice - attacking their faces, their bodies, the blood coming out of "her whatever", etc. He targets confident women who don't cringe or cower in his presence, like Carly Fiorina and Meghan Kelly. He wants our military to deliberately target and kill the family members of suspected terrorists, which of course would be largely if not mostly women and their children. Trump's sexism is in a league of its own.
I'm not familiar with Steinem and Albright or Clinton's response to them. Somehow when I was watching the Democratic debates, I missed that, and the 1998 speech she gave in El Salvador that you quoted. What I did witness was Clinton saying that she thinks she deserves to be elected because she is the most qualified candidate, not simply because she is a woman. Then I saw a GOP debate in which Trump defended the size of his genitalia.
Last edited:
I hope so too.
There is always something in one's background which figures into expression of faults.
I'm sure the same can be said for Steinem & Albright.......even for Trump.
Nonetheless, people are who they are, & such traits must be considered, not excused.
Since I don't watch debates, could you explain why his verbal assault on some woman is due to sexism, & not due to his propensity to do it to anyone who vexes him?
This is what she says, but she has her allies present the more sexist case with her tacit approval.
This sounds boorish, not sexist.
Note:
Her sexism & his boorism (neologism) are low on my weighted list of voting factors.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As a side, I was down in Dayton, Ohio, at a weekend religious seminar many moons ago whereas I ran across the priest who was pastor of the two nuns and two lay missionaries who were raped and then killed by men from the Salvadorian government's death squads. We skipped the next meeting in order to talk about this since I had studied that situation because of its ramifications.
What he said was shocking but not surprising, namely that our own government white-washed the situation, not even interviewing him whereas he was the one who sent them out, which he obviously regretted. Also, he talked about how our government ran war-games there, and "forgot" to take some of our military equipment back, thus handing them over to that despotic government. BTW, this happened during the Reagan presidency.
He invited me to come down and spend a summer there, which I would have loved to do but couldn't because of work. Of course, with my big mouth, if I had I could rather easily picture myself as being another "statistic".
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I think I did, and that is a false dichotomy.
Can you provide a specific example?
I think it can be both.
When there are 2 possible explanations for something, one should have reasons for picking one over the other.
To call it a "false dichotomy" doesn't address my question at all.
The examples I already gave....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/politics/gloria-steinem-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-boys/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/06/m...-for-them-if-they-dont-support-hillary-video/
You make the accusation because it "can be" sexist?
This isn't a very strong criticism of him.
Sexism appears to be endemic in the Democratic Party.
We have Hillary's misandry, & according to the Wa Po, we have Bernie's misogyny.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...much-sexism-hillary-clinton-faces-on-twitter/
But it could also be that the Wa Po is simply smearing Bernie in order to boost Hillary's victim cred.
Last edited:
First Baseman
Retired athlete
I would vote for Donald Trump before I would vote for anyone the Dem's nominate. I'm not a Republican but I don't like Hillary or Bernie.
Can Trump be so bad, if the system is so dead set against his candidacy?
Can Hillary be any good, if the system is so dead set on crowning her?
Listening to NPR more than usual yesterday, I heard non-stop campaigning against Trump,
& non-stop failure to address Hillary at all.....except to play the gender card for her.
Can Hillary be any good, if the system is so dead set on crowning her?
Listening to NPR more than usual yesterday, I heard non-stop campaigning against Trump,
& non-stop failure to address Hillary at all.....except to play the gender card for her.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
It will be interesting to see if the Republicans will nominate Trump or usurp him in the convention. This is one convention I don't want to miss. I stopped watching conventions at least a decade ago.
I've never watched one before.
But I'll keep me eye open for news about this'n.
Go Donald!
Btw, as my leftish friends here read this post, I can see them get
so angry that those big forehead veins start throbbing. Oh, joy!
First Baseman
Retired athlete
It should be quite a drama.