Trump Speaks Like Regular Folk

[Aegon]

Trump has massive impulse control problems.  Not just with speaking, but that is a place we can clearly see it on a regular basis.

How will he be good at any of the things you mentioned?  Impulsively making a decision, or enforcing a law he impulsively implimented?  Management???  ha!

I agree all the pocket lining, in crowd stuff is very bad, but Trump's throw it all to the wind and do whatever he likes approach is not actually better.

I don't think Drumpfuck's goal is actually to be the president. Yes, he'd love to win the election, but doing the job, that's a whole other level of activity altogether (especially for a lazy shit like him). Godless in Dixie has a good blogpost on the idea over at patheos.com.

Hell, the proof is already out there . But nobody seems to be talking about it

If you're voting Trump in November you're actually voting Pence.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, I know that's the most important factor I use when voting.  He talks like a regular guy.  That obviously means he's real down to earth.  I mean he has to be!  He's only declared bankruptcy 6 times, and is a billionaire who owns his own private jet plated in gold.  Who doesn't own one of those?  My husband has 2!  He sure seems like the type of guy you can sit down and buy a beer company with.

And that is the problem with Hillary she is like do you stand by me instead of running a campaign like that she should say
i'll stand by you. If she ran her campaign and actually gave a fuck about the working class and she would do a hell of a lot better
than what she is now. That's what people want in a president so when Trump goes oh hey i know it's hard for the working class
you know what ill bring jobs back get American working again and increase federal minimum wage.  When people hear that
and see that on TV it's what draws people to vote for Trump no one i mean gets drawn to Hillary with her ads they are 
focused attack ads using Trump then saying kids shouldn't be watching this... like.. really now children cant vote nor do they
care about the president going to be elected politics isn't for children. If she came out with a ad supporting her positions and
frankly well policies...she would have no voters.  There is a reason why she said she isn't for the TPP only to get voters..

Maybe I'm just jaded form Illinois and Chicago machine politics where pay-to-play is the norm. Corruption in this country has grown so widespread that many politicians don't even bother to hide it anymore because they are openly above the law. At least locally. To me, the Clinton foundation, Hillary's e-mail disgrace and lack of consequences for her indifference to the safety of our diplomats in Lybia is just the same thing on a national scale.

I can respect political differences. I think people that support Hillary feel strongly about left-wing policies and are sincere. I may disagree but that's why we have elections. So I encourage them to vote for every Democrat on the ticket if they want...except Hillary. Anyone else would have been put in jail for what she's done and if you performed your job like she has done her job you'd be fired. Instead you're giving her a promotion. Sanders wasn't a criminal. And he earned every vote he got, whereas her rise to power has been entirely by appointments and nearly uncontested elections.

As I see it people who object to Trump do so because of his style. He's said a lot of boneheaded things, but so have all politicians. 57 states anyone? Hence the OP. Very few the left spend much time arguing against his immigration policies other than playing the race card or saying that tariff threats will damage the economy, or that his foreign policies could lead to a power vacuum in sensitive regions. Instead it's all personal to most liberals: he's a buffoon or a blowhard or he doesn't have the temperament, etc., etc. Look, Bill Clinton chased a lot of skirts, but he was a good president. Newt was a callous cad, but he was effective. So I'm not all that interested in subjective evaluations of character. I'm more concerned about them doing the job they promised to do - which none of the sell-out career Republicans could ever do because they have their cronies too.

In some ways I see Trump's candidacy (and Bernie's noble but ultimately unsuccessful one for that matter) as a national referendum on a political system built around cronies, insiders, elites, and unaccountable bureaucracies. Maybe Trump would, as many on both sides say, prove to be a con man or the fox in the hen house. It's possible. But that's what we have now. At least with him I can have some slim hope that he would start the process of winnowing and purging the system. Hillary is the sure bet to preserve the status quo, the pinnacle of a corrupt establishment. I willing to take the chance buying the independent label rather than failure's greatest hits.

[SteelCurtain]

Meen-o-molist...Pleez don speak of my huzpant Duhnalt in these way.
It makes me and zee chil-drend veddy un-hippy.

I couldn't help but laugh. The irony here is that it's well known that Hillary's accent and language use magically changes depending on which side of the Mason-Dixon Line she's giving a speech.

So does mine. I don't do it consciously, but get me around my black relatives and I'm a little more...let's say... ebonically tilted. Even just me and my dad and brother get a little funky around each other.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't know about you but I took the time to read the policies on his website. Yeah right, I said, Mexico will pay for the wall. How's that going to happen? From what I read,  it at least seemes we might have actual leverage to make that the starting point for a negotiation to solve our immigration problems in partnership with Mexico. Maybe.

Forgive me quoting myself, but a few months ago over at TTA we were having a discussion about Trump so I did indeed go to his site and look at his positions, such as they are. The "you" in this part of my post there is not you, Chad.

Here's what he says there:

Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

None of those methods will assure that Mexico pays for any wall. He wants to "impound" illegal remittances? How, exactly, will he have the government determine their legality? He doesn't say how much he expects that measure to net. How much money comes from fees for border-crossing cards? Taking Trump's figures of 1 million issued to Mexico multiplied by $160 per card we get $160 million. Temporary visas, for Mexican CEOs and NAFTA workers $190 each, can't be bringing in very much money -- maximum $190 million assuming every border-crossing card issued per above goes to one of these catgories; and diplomats are not charged that fee at all [see previous link]. Tariffs against Mexico are illegal per the NAFTA agreement, which has the force of law under the US Constitution, meaning that if he wishes to impose them he will have to denounce that treaty, with the foreign-policy ramifications such a measure entails (this includes Canada). And cutting foreign aid to Mexico, which goes to help fight narcotraficantes, will only increase the instability of our southern neighbor, which will almost certainly drive up the numbers attempting to flee here.

CNN estimates that the wall he proposes would cost between $15 and $25 billion. Trump doesn't say how much he would boost these fees, nor does he say how he'd get Congress to denounce NAFTA, nor how he would ascertain the legality of outgoing remittances.

So as you can see, he put together a list of actions that he'd take to finance his wall, but we see upon further inspection that this is horseshit. It takes a little digging to look past the smoke-and-mirrors, and I certainly don't expect you to take the time to do it given that you're not a citizen or resident of the US, but if you're going to go around plumping for this guy, it's best to do a little research. Talking points do not a sound policy make.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I would like to vote for Johnson, but what's the fucking point? 

Yeah, what's the point of voting for the man who hates government so much that his whole raison d'etre is to run for the position at the apex of government?

That's what I don't understand about all strands of libertarianism. At least with proper anarchists, when they think government is evil they look to disengage themselves from it as much as possible. Libertarians on the other hand, think it's a valid tool for them to impose their views and prejudices on others.

No, we don't. We look on government as a necessary evil, and understand that one needs to be in charge of it in order to limit it. We don't feel government should be used to impose any views or prejudices.

[Cato]

[quote='Cato' pid='1346091' dateline='1469704647']
No doubt, we all do it to an extent. It's called phonetic accommodation and is thought to be a subconscious mechanism to appear more likable.

In Hillary's case in front of large audiences it comes across as contrived for the purpose of self aggrandizement. Nothing particularly malicious or harmful I suppose, but does here no favors in the authenticity department.

My wife used to work for a dentist that went so far as to feign a foreign accent if his patient spoke with one. There's a point with strangers that it may be a bit insulting.


So does mine. I don't do it consciously, but get me around my black relatives and I'm a little more...let's say... ebonically tilted. Even just me and my dad and brother get a little funky around each other.

[Cato]

On phone and was trying to respond to Steel and the quoting is all hosed and possibly difficult to edit on the phone. Abity to edit will expire before I get to a computer. Apologies.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't know about you but I took the time to read the policies on his website. Yeah right, I said, Mexico will pay for the wall. How's that going to happen? From what I read,  it at least seemes we might have actual leverage to make that the starting point for a negotiation to solve our immigration problems in partnership with Mexico. Maybe.

Forgive me quoting myself, but a few months ago over at TTA we were having a discussion about Trump so I did indeed go to his site and look at his positions, such as they are. The "you" in this part of my post there is not you, Chad.

---

Here's what he says there:


None of those methods will assure that Mexico pays for any wall. He wants to "impound" illegal remittances?  How, exactly, will he have the government determine their legality? He doesn't say how much he expects that measure to net. How much money comes from fees for border-crossing cards?  Taking Trump's figures of 1 million issued to Mexico multiplied by $160 per card we get $160 million.  Temporary visas, for Mexican CEOs and NAFTA workers $190 each, can't be bringing in very much money -- maximum $190 million assuming every border-crossing card issued per above goes to one of these catgories; and diplomats are not charged that fee at all [see previous link]. Tariffs against Mexico are illegal per the NAFTA agreement, which has the force of law under the US Constitution, meaning that if he wishes to impose them he will have to denounce that treaty, with the foreign-policy ramifications such a measure entails (this includes Canada). And cutting foreign aid to Mexico, which goes to help fight narcotraficantes, will only increase the instability of our southern neighbor, which will almost certainly drive up the numbers attempting to flee here.

CNN estimates that the wall he proposes would cost between $15 and $25 billion. Trump doesn't say how much he would boost these fees, nor does he say how he'd get Congress to denounce NAFTA, nor how he would ascertain the legality of outgoing remittances.

So as you can see, he put together a list of actions that he'd take to finance his wall, but we see upon further inspection that this is horseshit. It takes a little digging to look past the smoke-and-mirrors, and I certainly don't expect you to take the time to do it given that you're not a citizen or resident of the US, but if you're going to go around plumping for this guy, it's best to do a little research. Talking points do not a sound policy make.

---

[Minimalist]

Everyone has been so worked up about the shithead calling for Russia to hack Hillary's computer that they have missed this little gem.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/tr...sia-226292

Trump to look at recognizing Crimea as Russian territory, lifting sanctions

Donald Trump said Wednesday that, if he is elected president, he would consider recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and lifting the sanctions against Russia.
At a wide-ranging news conference, Trump said he “would be looking into that” when asked about his stance on Crimea and Russia. The Crimean Peninsula has been part of Ukraine for decades, but Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed the territory in March 2014 after a popular revolt toppled Kiev's pro-Russian government.

The United States, along with the European Union, has refused to recognize the annexation or the referendum legitimizing it and has enforced sanctions on Russian state banks and corporations.

Seems to me that added to his recent comments about fucking with NATO it goes a long way to explaining why Putin thinks this miserable shit is such a good buddy!

[account_inactive]

Excellent.