Never Trump
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Red
Well-Known Member
We might also keep in mind the frequency with which Trump has harshly criticized the press. At his rallies, he keeps the press separate in a caged area, often points them out and derides them, to the crowds delight, refers to them as "scum" "low lifes", "the worst", etc. He has also publicly stated that he will change libel laws if elected, to make it easier to sue the press if he thinks they are being unfair to him. Not to mention all the press credentials he has revoked if he feels the newspaper or news outlet has not been fair to him. I would submit, under those circumstances, even if they are expected to be impartial, all of these things are not likely to endear Trump to the press and news media. So, to that extent, he may also need to lay some blame at his own feet for a preponderance of bad press for Trump, and far less for Clinton. Frequent references to the press as "scum" can't be helping him with the press.
All that said, including my earlier comment, does not mean the press should not act the part of watchdog for the electorate, as my Civics class taught, with Clinton in the crosshairs as much as Trump....
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Maybe, just maybe, do you think that is possible, despite your best efforts to delude yourself otherwise, that Hillary is not as bad as Trump? I mean, I know you've been trying really hard to play this whole "they're both equally horrible" shtick for a while now, but have you considered that your own biases make you think the media is biased?
And come on, you can drop the charade. We know you're going to vote Trump.
Red
Well-Known Member
By way of personal aside, not quite true. Had the GOP nominated someone who did not strike me as a nut, I would be voting against Hillary. At least I believe that would be the case. I long since concluded Trump was the worse choice. There was no point in spending as much effort in examining Hillary, once I began to realize what Trump represented, a reactionary bigot. I will be voting against Trump. Since my state is not a swing state, Clinton will win RI, I have the "luxury " of voting third party. That said, it would be more likely the Green Party then Libertarian. But, I made it clear, just within this thread, from the very beginning of this thread, that I see Trump as a demagogue, using the tricks of that trade. And I seldom, if ever, have seen that work out in other nations, at other times. As I think I have put it, at least once, I will take the crook, thank you, over a demagogue who uses the rhetoric that man uses. It would be very hard for me to visualize myself voting for the same guy all the white nationalists will be voting for...
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Red, I think that you and I agree on a lot more than we disagree on, but it still confuses me that you seem to believe that Hillary is an acceptable choice. It's as if you know how badly flawed she is, but you think we must hold our nose and vote because the only alternative you see is Trump.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Wrong.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Oh, I know. Every time there's a thread about economy, race, policing, immigration, LGBTQ rights or any issue, really, your views seem to align with Trump's. But you're not voting for him.
It's okay, bubbeleh. You don't have to lie to me. I'm on your side. I'm keeping all my fingers crossed for a Trump victory, too.
[MENTION=592]Jonah[/MENTION].... that good post is just too big to quote ten times in here, lol
I think I have heard Bannon talking a few times, and several others on Breitbart a few times. When I'm traveling, my only radio access is XM, and sometimes I listen to the dems on another channel too.
What I've been thinking is that they have some good points about how a lot of Americans now feel that they are being forced into the back seat of the bus while they're the taxpayers, and the dems are importing a privileged class voter block to pad their power position, at the expense of the taxpayers.
Most people are not racial haters, but many can identify a color coded class of humans whom the Democrats are picking out for favored treatment, while clucking at "the white racists" and lecturing them on good manners.
This line of racist Democratic campaign schtick is truly degrading race relations. A lot of lesser intellects will pile on one side or another.
The government, and the main political parties, should stick to Martin Luther King's ideal of judgment based on the content of a man's character more than skin color. Equal justice under the law begins with equal standing in the political rhetoric.
Now that you've laid out the agenda you believe Bannon is pushing, I will look for that in future listening.
I think I have heard Bannon talking a few times, and several others on Breitbart a few times. When I'm traveling, my only radio access is XM, and sometimes I listen to the dems on another channel too.
What I've been thinking is that they have some good points about how a lot of Americans now feel that they are being forced into the back seat of the bus while they're the taxpayers, and the dems are importing a privileged class voter block to pad their power position, at the expense of the taxpayers.
Most people are not racial haters, but many can identify a color coded class of humans whom the Democrats are picking out for favored treatment, while clucking at "the white racists" and lecturing them on good manners.
This line of racist Democratic campaign schtick is truly degrading race relations. A lot of lesser intellects will pile on one side or another.
The government, and the main political parties, should stick to Martin Luther King's ideal of judgment based on the content of a man's character more than skin color. Equal justice under the law begins with equal standing in the political rhetoric.
Now that you've laid out the agenda you believe Bannon is pushing, I will look for that in future listening.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your free analysis but it's not worth what I paid.
Red
Well-Known Member
You know, Clinton may win and precipitate Armageddon. In which case, boy, was that ever my bad, boys.
I don't like Clinton. I have an unfavorable view of her, an opinion I apparently share with 56% of Americans, according to the news I just watched. But the Trump candidacy just galvanized me because I saw it in a context based on other examples of demagogues in history that rattles me. I cannot know that history, and then just sit and do nothing when I see the possibility of a fascist-like, intellectual pipsqueak actually coming to power here. I do have the option of not voting at all. Been there, done that enough times. I guess I feel I have a responsibility to vote against Trump. I can vote third party, but it's either going to be Trump or Clinton who wins. Regardless of who I think is acceptable. It's one of those two.
BTW, I know you were not inclined to believe millions of Trump voters would think the election was rigged if Clinton wins. But, in fact, they already believe that will be the case. Only a landslide would prevent them from believing the same on November 9th. In North Carolina alone, 7 in 10 Trump supporters seem to assume just that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ieve-a-rigged-system-stole-the-2016-election/
Red
Well-Known Member
Is it possible you find them both unacceptable, but would not be disappointed if Trump won, relieved even, and is it possible I find both unacceptable, but would not be disappointed if Clinton won, relieved even? The latter part of that question is certainly true.
