Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

[noco]

Hmmm.. Well I have no fixed political ideology [like you I gather] but Trump strikes me as a bigot, egotist and as a person who is blatantly dangerous to the globe.

"Hills" is not OK - but less "disastrous".

I don't know whether you can place much trust in the US press which is similar to our own ABC.....Very far left and influenced by the Clinton camp.

 

[Muschu]

What do you think is my fixed political ideology?

Hint 1. I have stated it often enough

Hint 2. I am not a conservative

Hmmmm??

Were you stating Wayne to be far left?

Why hint? Just advise. Don't like word games. And not going to scroll back through your posts.

 

[Muschu]

I don't know whether you can place much trust in the US press which is similar to our own ABC.....Very far left and influenced by the Clinton camp.

Sorry, wasn't referring to press. Trump's own mouth has been his downfall.......

Please don't infer that I am saying Hillary is a saint..... Just the lesser of two evils.

 

[drsmith]

Winning candidate Sportsbet Hillary/Donald: $1.20/$5.00 + 3 others at plenty.
Popular vote percentage: $1.17/$4.65.

 

[Knobby22]

Winning candidate Sportsbet Hillary/Donald: $1.20/$5.00 + 3 others at plenty.
Popular vote percentage: $1.17/$4.65.

Must be a lot of people betting on Hillary. Odds have shortened markedly.

 

[Logique]

Winning candidate Sportsbet Hillary/Donald: $1.20/$5.00 + 3 others at plenty.
Popular vote percentage: $1.17/$4.65.

Looks too high a mountain for The Donald at $5.00.

Anyway, two more sleeps and the long campaign ordeal will be over.

 

[drsmith]

Must be a lot of people betting on Hillary. Odds have shortened markedly.

Whilst not being a close follower of US politics, I have a small wager on this in the form of a hot caffeinated beverage.

I'm assuming US voters overall aren't quiet as out there as one of the candidates.

 

[So_Cynical]

Winning candidate Sportsbet Hillary/Donald: $1.20/$5.00 + 3 others at plenty.
Popular vote percentage: $1.17/$4.65.

That would help explain the market rally and fall in gold stocks today.

 

[wayneL]

Were you stating Wayne to be far left?

Why hint? Just advise. Don't like word games. And not going to scroll back through your posts.

Fair enough.

Best not to make assumptions then, what?

 

[Muschu]

Fair enough.

Best not to make assumptions then, what?

Sorry, I think it was Basilo of whom you said

"I suggest your interpretation of facts is severely skewed by your far left ideology".

I should suggest rather than assume...

Tired of keyboard biting.

 

[wayneL]

Sorry, I think it was Basilo of whom you said

"I suggest your interpretation of facts is severely skewed by your far left ideology".

I should suggest rather than assume...

Tired of keyboard biting.

Well there's a lot of territory to the right of the far left, without being either rigid, or far right, including the center.

 

[basilio]

Did you Know ?

That Donald Trumps lawyers have to meet him in pairs to deal with his inveterate lying ? Another fascinating fact about the man who would be President.

You can find the source of this statement in the article I am citing.

How does Donald Trump lie? A fact checker's final guide

As the presidential campaign has gathered speed, the Guardian has gathered together the lies the Republican candidate has told. What have we learned?

Alan Yuhas
@alanyuhas

Monday 7 November 2016 22.00 AEDT


Donald Trump lies like he tweets: erratically, at all hours, sometimes in malice and sometimes in self-contradiction, and sometimes without any apparent purpose at all. The Guardian has catalogued more than 100 falsehoods made by the Republican nominee over the last 150 days, and sorted them according to theme.

Hillary Clinton has been caught in more than a dozen falsehoods of her own, for instance about her email practices and her past support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But Clinton often makes her falsehoods in dense legalese, making them hard to pin a motive on: many could as easily be errors as lies, careless exaggeration or deliberately misleading claims.

Trump, on the other hand, will say “wrong” when he hears his own quotes. His own lawyers met him in pairs to counteract his lying, court documents show. He has invented false statistics, fictional videos and sex tapes and a nonexistent man named “John Miller” to talk about his sex life. Months of fact-checking, however, reveal methods and, whether he means to or not, Trump’s guide to success through lying.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/07/how-does-donald-trump-lie-fact-checker

 

[Muschu]

Well there's a lot of territory to the right of the far left, without being either rigid, or far right, including the center.

I agree

 

[luutzu]

Did you Know ?

That Donald Trumps lawyers have to meet him in pairs to deal with his inveterate lying ? Another fascinating fact about the man who would be President.

You can find the source of this statement in the article I am citing.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/07/how-does-donald-trump-lie-fact-checker

I saw a few examples of Trump lying, and man he's quite an incredible liar.

But it seem that he's so unlikeable and full of himself that we know he's lying; or at least not take anything he said seriously - even if it's true.

Clinton I've also seen her lying - about her server being more secured and advanced than that of the State Dept.; how she not only change her stances and shift positions, but say it as though she's always been for whatever it is that's now popular - like how she has always "championed" $15 minimum wage, how she's always been for gay marriages, against the TTP etc. etc.


Probably repeating myself from previous postings, but Hillary is just too smooth and too comfortable for the public good.

When a liar like Trump make some claim, most would know he's lying and so would check on it. When Clinton lies, she's so good and so polite about it we wouldn't even think about the possibility of her lying.

That and with a media that's submissive to those in power and the population living so precariously they hardly have any time to read much beside the few minutes of news... the US (and the world) could get into another few wars without even realising it.

I mean, Obama deported more people than all US presidents did, ever. He appoint a bunch of Wall St. and business friendly people into senior gov't positions and made a few Secretaries; the permanently extend the Bush Jr. tax cuts for the wealthy; permit the banks and too big to fail financial institutions to get even bigger; giving them free cash in the trillions; sign off on and expand drone wars on suspect all over the ME and Africa; fast tracking the TPP, pivot to Asia to confront China etc. etc.

but because he's painted as some "liberal" and "left" president, he could do it without people suspecting he'd ever do such a thing.

Anyway, it's between a rock and a hard place. I guess the American people are waking up to how not so special their country is and are demanding changes. Or else.

 

[Tisme]

Having been in the USA many times, it doesn't surprise me the sheeple attitude of the masses, not at all unlike those who walk amongst us who, by and large, have an illogical bond to our political parties.

But there is hope:

 

[Gringotts Bank]

I've started to feel a bit nervous about this election. I can't see any possibility of a good outcome, either way. A Clinton win would be 'safer', which is most important, but then there's just more of the same... meaning that the US continues its decline as a World power. There's no way she has what it takes to create massive positive change.

#beyourownpresident
#Ihavenopresident

 

[Tisme]

Animals!

 

[Gringotts Bank]

When a liar like Trump make some claim, most would know he's lying and so would check on it. When Clinton lies, she's so good and so polite about it we wouldn't even think about the possibility of her lying.
.

Yeh, with Trump you know exactly what you're dealing with. He's the archetypal white, male, patriarchal, boss-man avatar and it's very easy to know how he's going to act in any situation. That certainty has an appeal, because it's transparent and predictable. It's also powerful, so you know things will get a real shake up. However, under prolonged duress, such archetypes will falter. They either morph into cruel dictators (like the Chinese and Russian leaders) or they start to doubt themselves and wobble and crack. Wobbling and cracking is extremely unlikely, but it can happen. Jeff Kennett wobbled and cracked, then mysteriously re-appeared as an advocate of mental health, claiming he was unaffected by the backlash. I hope for Trump's sake he doesn't get elected.

 

[McLovin]

There's great piece by Edward Luce in the FT today (republished in the AFR) about how Twitter has debased political discourse into memes and divided society into ideologies. It's a longish read but worthwhile.

Provocation is the goal of the so-called alt-right - the amorphous world of rightwing extremist groups that have thrived in the age of Donald Trump. Memes, such as the one of the Syrian boy, are their weapon. Notoriety is their oxygen. The past year or two have been a field day. "No matter what happens, I will be profoundly grateful to Trump for the rest of my life," says Spencer.

After what seems like the worst-tempered US election ever, America will at last make its decision on Wednesday (AEDT). History may look back on 2016 as the year when the US finally chose a woman to lead it, or when the postwar US-global order started to break up. Others will remember it as the election when a rank outsider - a reality-TV star, no less - stormed the citadel and changed the way the game was played.

For my part, having lived in America on and off since the end of the past century, this is the year when democracy's sense of restraint seemed to vanish. The glue of mutual respect that is so vital to any free society came unstuck. People no longer bother trying to persuade each other. They simply shove their views - or the mere fact of their identity - in your face. Or else they just insult you. The more retweets the better.

...

For all its pluses, social media has drowned politics in vitriol. New technology has opened up a galaxy of thought once confined to libraries, but it has also enabled ancient prejudices to seep back into the mainstream - anti-Semitism, for example, and hatred of women. In the past few months, the Twitter hashtags #whitegenocide (the view that whites are endangered by multiculturalism) and #repealthe19th (the US constitution's 19th amendment gave women the right to vote) have trended heavily.

Obnoxiousness has infected all sides of the spectrum but the right has learnt how to play the game better. Partly because it is rebelling against political correctness, it works with fewer boundaries, or none at all. The level of trust between electors and elected has been falling for years. In 2016 the electorate has begun to turn viciously on itself. Is this a blip or a permanent shift? The future of free society may depend on the answer. Democracy cannot prosper for long in a swamp of mutual dislike.

...

Every few days, Spencer and a group of alt-righters record a podcast called the Daily Shoah (the Hebrew word for the Holocaust). Participants are known as "Death Panellists". Spencer often greets his "fellow goyim" (the Hebrew word for non-Jews). It does not get less subtle than this. They also put great store on style. Many of their hashtags begin with #fash, which blends fashion with fascist. Thus Mussolini was a "#fasharapper".

Whenever Spencer, or a follower, tweets about a Jewish figure, or someone they think to be philo-Semitic, they put triple brackets on either side of their name. It is the Twittersphere's version of the yellow star. To subvert the symbol, Jewish journalists have taken to doing it themselves (((as have plenty of others))).

I ask Spencer why he does this. He seems capable of reasoned argument, even if his views repel. Yet he chooses not to. "We live in a post-literate age," he says. During the enlightenment people made their case through books - everything was mediated via the written word, he says. We are heading back to the pre-enlightenment era. People didn't read the Bible then; they looked at it. A clever meme may use a dash of text but it is essentially an image, or a video, that speaks to people's emotions - "like a hieroglyph or a stained-glass window", he says. The more it grabs them the better.

Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/world/us-el...the-twitter-age-20161107-gsk6wv#ixzz4PNMe6pAb

 

[Knobby22]

From post above:

He seems capable of reasoned argument, even if his views repel. Yet he chooses not to. "We live in a post-literate age," he says. During the enlightenment people made their case through books - everything was mediated via the written word, he says. We are heading back to the pre-enlightenment era. People didn't read the Bible then; they looked at it. A clever meme may use a dash of text but it is essentially an image, or a video, that speaks to people's emotions - "like a hieroglyph or a stained-glass window", he says. The more it grabs them the better.

I'm hoping the Gen Zs will be better than this. Hopefully, we aren't going to go the way of sheep, ready for another dictator. If not, Democracy is in danger.