PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on May 15, 2016, 09:24:27 AM
-
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-05-12/american-caudillo
For those of us who study Latin America, it has been fascinating to watch the gradual but certain Latin-Americanization of U.S. politics. The latest and most compelling sign yet is the rise of Republican presidential contender Donald J. Trump, whose braggadocio, demagoguery, and disdain for the rule of law puts him squarely in the tradition of El Caudillo (loosely translated into English as “the leader” or “the chief”), a mainstay of Latin American politics.
-
Would you rather have Hillary or Bernie? Devout communists? More Obama?
-
Would you rather have Hillary or Bernie? Devout communists? More Obama?
I think he would.
Jeff is acting like a "Woman scorned". To him, even a full blown socialist is better than a Republican with some left leaning ideas.
-
I think he would.
Jeff is acting like a "Woman scorned". To him, even a full blown socialist is better than a Republican with some left leaning ideas.
Speaking only for myself, my scorn for Trump has nothing to do with any "left leaning ideas".
Mocking cripples, advocating torture and targeting the familes of terrorists and expecting military officers to follow illegal orders are not "left leaning ideas", but are what disqualify him from my consideration.
-
I don't like some of the things Trump has said, but I do like that he is NOT PC. That is killing us.
-
Speaking only for myself, my scorn for Trump has nothing to do with any "left leaning ideas".
Mocking cripples, advocating torture and targeting the familes of terrorists and expecting military officers to follow illegal orders are not "left leaning ideas", but are what disqualify him from my consideration.
You are clearly able to recognize Trump's faults. But I don't recall seeing you point out all the fallacies of the Ds faults. I believe that if one were to create a pro-con list, and give weights to each item, Trump would not score as bad as Hillary or Bernie.
But yes, you can point to several really bad things about Trump. I don't over look them, I just balance them against the alternatives.
And what's wrong with mocking a cripple that has first mocked you? Why are cripples any more protected from mocking than anyone else? Besides, don't you know that calling people "a cripple" is politically incorrect?
And as for expecting military officers to follow illegal orders; that is the Saturday Night Live version of what he said. He advocated changing the law so the orders wouldn't be illegal. And I agree that in certain situations, we should be able to torture terrorists.
-
Well said Little Joe. I think Fast Eddie may be a closet liberal/progressive. :)
-
Well said Little Joe. I think Fast Eddie may be a closet liberal/progressive. :)
Doesn't matter either way to me. I appreciate the view points of all here. Especially those with which I disagree as it causes me to think and at times conduct research.
-
And what's wrong with mocking a cripple that has first mocked you? Why are cripples any more protected from mocking than anyone else? Besides, don't you know that calling people "a cripple" is politically incorrect?
And as for expecting military officers to follow illegal orders; that is the Saturday Night Live version of what he said. He advocated changing the law so the orders wouldn't be illegal. And I agree that in certain situations, we should be able to torture terrorists.
1) In either party, I hate the "deny deny deny" strategy. I would have respected Trump more if he had come clean and said, "Look. What I did was spontaneous and in extremely poor taste. I apologize to Mr. xxx, and with I could take it back. I'm truly sorry and hope he accepts my apology." Instead, he said he had never met the reporter, which was simply not credible given the nature of the exaggerated movements Trump made on stage.
Same thing now with the released "Miller" tape. It's clearly him, he's admitted as such - apparently under oath - and yet now he denies it.
2) I heard Trump asked what would he do if the military refused to follow his orders to torture terrorists or "take out" their families. He responded, "Don't worry, they're not going to refuse me...If I say do it, they're going to do it". That was pretty clear at the time, not on Saturday Night Live, and now needs "walking back" to clarify what he "really meant". It would take all kinds of pretzel logic to read that as advocating "changing the law".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zle7YThX2r8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zle7YThX2r8)
As far as the D's being as bad or worse, maybe - but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
-
Well said Little Joe. I think Fast Eddie may be a closet liberal/progressive. :)
Why stop there? Add some more slashes and labels - liberal/progressive/communist/fascist/Buddhist/Immunodefficientist/etc.
You know, voting for president is not a binary choice for many people. Often, it is an evaluation of all available candidates, and a selection of the one best-suited for the presidency, or a decision not to select a candidate if the determination is made that none are fit for the service. So many folks here want to push people into a binary choice of the lesser of two weevils (http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2010/two-weevils.jpg). That is certainly a valid way to vote, but not the only way. And, frankly, there is a good argument that the nigh-sacred right to vote is cheapened by voting for a candidate that's shitty, but somewhat less shitty than the opponent.
-
binary choice of the lesser of two weevils (http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2010/two-weevils.jpg).
-
I think he would.
Jeff is acting like a "Woman scorned". To him, even a full blown socialist is better than a Republican with some left leaning ideas.
So, here's a false-choice for you to make.
If, instead of Trump, David Duke had won the R nomination: Would you vote for him or Hillary?
-
So, here's a false-choice for you to make.
If, instead of Trump, David Duke had won the R nomination: Would you vote for him or Hillary?
In that case, I would vote for Hillary. Duke's divisiveness may even exceed Obama's. And our divided citizenry may just be our number one problem now because it keeps us at each others throats and from solving other problems.
-
Would you rather have Hillary or Bernie? Devout communists? More Obama?
It's not always that simple and it's not always linear. There are a lot of factors that go into who someone chooses to vote for and sometimes it's more complicated than "vote for Trump or you actually voted for Hillary".
-
It's not always that simple and it's not always linear. There are a lot of factors that go into who someone chooses to vote for and sometimes it's more complicated than "vote for Trump or you actually voted for Hillary".
It's never "that simple".
And sometimes it is more complicated.
But in the upcoming election, it is fairly simple.
Either Trump or Hillary is going to win, depending on who gets the most electoral votes.
Now my vote, or your vote, or any of our votes here by themselves may not make a difference. But if enough Republicans are so dissatisfied with Trump that they don't vote, and if Hillary wins, then each vote not cast for Trump will deserve part of the blame (or credit) for the inauguration of President Hillary.
Similarly, I am hoping that enough Ds are so dissatisfied with Hillary that they fail to vote, which could possibly help put the R in office.
-
It's never "that simple".
And sometimes it is more complicated.
But in the upcoming election, it is fairly simple.
Either Trump or Hillary is going to win, depending on who gets the most electoral votes.
Now my vote, or your vote, or any of our votes here by themselves may not make a difference. But if enough Republicans are so dissatisfied with Trump that they don't vote, and if Hillary wins, then each vote not cast for Trump will deserve part of the blame (or credit) for the inauguration of President Hillary.
Similarly, I am hoping that enough Ds are so dissatisfied with Hillary that they fail to vote, which could possibly help put the R in office.
I understand how it works. What I don't accept is the idea that it will be my fault (in part) if Hillary gets elected because I didn't vote for Trump. Again, we're back to the argument that during the primaries, it was the fault of Cruz and Rubio and everyone else who didn't make it because they didn't run a good enough campaign to get enough votes to win, but during the general it won't be Trump's fault if he didn't win, it'll be mine and everyone else who didn't vote for him. It's silly.
-
I understand how it works. What I don't accept is the idea that it will be my fault (in part) if Hillary gets elected because I didn't vote for Trump. Again, we're back to the argument that during the primaries, it was the fault of Cruz and Rubio and everyone else who didn't make it because they didn't run a good enough campaign to get enough votes to win, but during the general it won't be Trump's fault if he didn't win, it'll be mine and everyone else who didn't vote for him. It's silly.
I think if Hillary wins it will be the fault of the 42% of Republicans who voted for the most liberal, bombastic, infantile, egomaniacal candidate to ever run for the GOP nomination for President of the United States. It certainly won't be the fault of the 58% of Republicans who DIDN'T vote for him.
-
ultimately, the root cause of the doormat being elected is the number of idiots who vote for the doormat.
-
Now my vote, or your vote, or any of our votes here by themselves may not make a difference. But if enough Republicans are so dissatisfied with Trump that they don't vote, and if Hillary wins, then each vote not cast for Trump will deserve part of the blame (or credit) for the inauguration of President Hillary.
No, they won't. There are only two parties deserving of "blame" if Hillary is elected: those who voted for her, and Trump.