|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
A brief polling roundup of Trump's problems with women.
In related news, bookings at Trump hotels and casinos has nosedived. It's bad marketing, to be repellent. I don't patronize casinos, but I certainly will never stay in a Trump hotel ever.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Another example of fomenting liberal paranoia about Trump through bait-and-switch tactics. This time by Jeffrey Simpson, the dean of Canadian political columnists.
Simpson criticizes Trump for "the bashing of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and the North American Free Trade Agrrement." Apparently, bashing a trade-agreement is morally equivalent to bashing human beings.
This kinda reminds me of this ad from a few years back, intended to sway gays, feminists, and liberals against the nomination of Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary. The ad says Hagel is "anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-Isreal, anti-gay, and pro-assault weapons".
It's the odd-man-out on that list which probably tells you what the real agenda of the producers was.
[ 04. June 2016, 18:22: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Simpson criticizes Trump for "the bashing of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and the North American Free Trade Agrrement." Apparently, bashing a trade-agreement is morally equivalent to bashing human beings.
No, bashing NAFTA does not equate to bashing human beings. Plenty of pols on both sides of the aisle have criticized NAFTA. But calling an entire group of people rapists and criminals or suggesting that a well-educated professional can't do his job because of ethnicity. Yeah, that is morally equivalent to bashing human beings
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Simpson criticizes Trump for "the bashing of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and the North American Free Trade Agrrement." Apparently, bashing a trade-agreement is morally equivalent to bashing human beings.
No, bashing NAFTA does not equate to bashing human beings. Plenty of pols on both sides of the aisle have criticized NAFTA. But calling an entire group of people rapists and criminals or suggesting that a well-educated professional can't do his job because of ethnicity. Yeah, that is morally equivalent to bashing human beings
Yes, but when you list NAFTA-bashing in the same train of words as Mexican-bashing and Mexican-American-bashing, it's pretty clear(to me anyway) that you're trying to equate opposition to NAFTA with racism. If that wasn't what Simpson was trying to do, he should have separated his concerns about racism more clearly from his concerns about anti-trade.
It's like when someone says "That guy's a real ant-semite. He hates religious Jews, secular Jews, and the Likud Party of Israel". I don't think you need a Ph.D in Dog-Whistle Detection to know that there is a particular agenda being pished there, and it's not anything as innocent as "opposing anti-semitism".
[ 04. June 2016, 19:26: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
One thing, this sentence of mine was badly worded, and possibly badly thought-out...
quote:
Another example of fomenting liberal paranoia about Trump through bait-and-switch tactics.
Liberal concern about Trump's racism is justified, and not just something that is being fomented by establishment Democrats. It would have been better for me to say that Simpson was exploting liberal concern about Trump's racism, in order to piggyback other issues(eg. NAFTA) onto it.
"Bait-and-switch" is a better description of the criticism of Trump's foreign-policy, since I think left-wingers are being led to believe that he is a belligerent warmonger, whereas when you read the content of the criticism, what he is really being attacked for is isolationism.
[ 04. June 2016, 19:50: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
I think you've misrepresented the nature of Jeffrey Simpson's column by your selective quotation.
The full sentence you rather drastically truncated runs:
quote:
Because even if he is defeated in the November election, he has made more legitimate in U.S. discourse the bashing of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans and the North American free-trade agreement (of which Canada is part), thereby showing U.S. politicians of all stripes the political profitability of beating up on Mexicans and Mexico and, by extension, further Northern American integration, which in certain instances is manifestly in Canada’s economic interests.
The whole column ("Just wait until the Donald casts his eyes northward") is about the dangers a Trump presidency poses to Canada. It's unfair to say that mentioning Trump's behavior towards Mexico in this context is somehow implying that "bashing a trade-agreement is morally equivalent to bashing human beings."
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think you've misrepresented the nature of Jeffrey Simpson's column by your selective quotation.
The full sentence you rather drastically truncated runs:
quote:
Because even if he is defeated in the November election, he has made more legitimate in U.S. discourse the bashing of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans and the North American free-trade agreement (of which Canada is part), thereby showing U.S. politicians of all stripes the political profitability of beating up on Mexicans and Mexico and, by extension, further Northern American integration, which in certain instances is manifestly in Canada’s economic interests.
The whole column ("Just wait until the Donald casts his eyes northward") is about the dangers a Trump presidency poses to Canada. It's unfair to say that mentioning Trump's behavior towards Mexico in this context is somehow implying that "bashing a trade-agreement is morally equivalent to bashing human beings."
I don't think the full quote really helps your case. In fact, it makes it pretty clear that Simpson's ultimate concern about the anti-Mexican rhetoric is that it will lead to negative economic consequences for Canada.
If Simpson is concerned about Trump's racism, he should have written a column on that. If he was concerned about Trump's position of economic integration, he should have written a column on that. (Or at least, divided the two topics in his column.) Instead of talking about the two things as if they were a part of one seamless entity.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
"Bait-and-switch" is a better description of the criticism of Trump's foreign-policy, since I think left-wingers are being led to believe that he is a belligerent warmonger, whereas when you read the content of the criticism, what he is really being attacked for is isolationism.
I'm not sure it's unjustified. Trump also claims to be very easygoing personally and not some kind of belligerent, thin-skinned crybaby. It's one of those "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes" situations.
Trump is very concerned that the U.S. isn't "respected" around the world and that everyone is laughing at Americans. For example:
quote:
And Saudi Arabians "take such advantage of us with the oil . . . and they laugh at this country.
quote:
I know many of the people in China. I know many of the big business people. And they’re laughing at us. They think we’re stupid and our representatives are so stupid, that they can’t even believe what they’re getting away with.
quote:
We have become a laughingstock, the world's whipping boy.
quote:
After Syria, our enemies are laughing!
quote:
Mexican leadership has been laughing at us for many years but now it’s no longer laughter—it’s disbelief...
quote:
The Persians are great negotiators. They are laughing at the stupidity of the deal we’re making on nuclear.
quote:
ISIS is laughing at us.
So while Trump's stated policy (to the extent such a thing exists) may be classified as some form of isolationism, most of the "belligerent warmonger" analysis rests instead on the fairly clear observation that Donald Trump is a very thin-skinned man who already thinks everyone is laughing at America and whose first impulse in such situations is belligerent escalation.
[ 04. June 2016, 20:20: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I can just see Kim Jong Un sabre-rattling, and Trump calling him "stupid" on Twitter.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think you've misrepresented the nature of Jeffrey Simpson's column by your selective quotation.
The full sentence you rather drastically truncated runs:
quote:
Because even if he is defeated in the November election, he has made more legitimate in U.S. discourse the bashing of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans and the North American free-trade agreement (of which Canada is part), thereby showing U.S. politicians of all stripes the political profitability of beating up on Mexicans and Mexico and, by extension, further Northern American integration, which in certain instances is manifestly in Canada’s economic interests.
The whole column ("Just wait until the Donald casts his eyes northward") is about the dangers a Trump presidency poses to Canada. It's unfair to say that mentioning Trump's behavior towards Mexico in this context is somehow implying that "bashing a trade-agreement is morally equivalent to bashing human beings."
I don't think the full quote really helps your case. In fact, it makes it pretty clear that Simpson's ultimate concern about the anti-Mexican rhetoric is that it will lead to negative economic consequences for Canada.
If Simpson is concerned about Trump's racism, he should have written a column on that. If he was concerned about Trump's position of economic integration, he should have written a column on that. (Or at least, divided the two topics in his column.) Instead of talking about the two things as if they were a part of one seamless entity.
This is ridiculous. He did write a column on Trump's threat to economic integration - it's the one you linked to. He's mentioning Trump's racism in support of his argument. And why shouldn't he? Do you really think Trump's slander of Mexicans promotes international trade?
Claiming Trump's bigotry reinforces his threat to economic integration in one article is hardly the same thing as saying the two are "a part of one seamless entity."
Besides, demanding a separate article for each different possible criticism of Trump is wholly unreasonable - who could possibly have that much free time?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
What puzzles me is how so many Christian people can support Trump. It would be harder to find a less Christ-like politician, not that this is a very high bar. And after all the previous howling about immorality (Bill Clinton) or possibly being a Muslim (Obama) you would think Trump would be anathema. An article analyzing this question.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Croesos wrote:
quote:
So while Trump's stated policy (to the extent such a thing exists) may be classified as some form of isolationism, most of the "belligerent warmonger" analysis rests instead on the fairly clear observation that Donald Trump is a very thin-skinned man who already thinks everyone is laughing at America and whose first impulse in such situations is belligerent escalation.
Yeah, I agree. Trump's manic inferiority-complex, especially projected upon the nation as a whole, is definitely a cause for concern. But that observation hasn't so far seemed to be the main tact taken by his opponents, probably because it's kind of an intangible trait(as compared to, for example, racist statements).
Though I did note Hillary Clinton mentioning his thin-skinnedness in her takedown the other day, which I thought was good, since it's hitting him where it hurts.
A guy like Trump doesn't care if he's called racist or belliegerent, in fact, he's likely to just reply "Damn straight I am!!"(well, maybe not in so many words, but that's the gist). But it's pretty clear that he is the kind of person who would NOT want to be considered thin-skinned, and would probably be somewhat unhinged by the accusation.
One thing...
quote:
and whose first impulse in such situations is belligerent escalation
Trump has said that he would talk to Kim Jong Un, which, assuming he means "...without North Korea having to renounce its nuclear program", is a more amicable posiition than that taken by the current POTUS or Democratic candidate. Of course, with Trump, it's kinda hard to tell what exactly he means a lot of the time.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
This is ridiculous. He did write a column on Trump's threat to economic integration - it's the one you linked to. He's mentioning Trump's racism in support of his argument. And why shouldn't he? Do you really think Trump's slander of Mexicans promotes international trade?
Well, it might not promote international trade, but I'm not convinced that it's neccessarly gonna hinder it either. If Mexico thinks it benefits from the NAFTA provisions, I doubt they'll opt out just because Trump says Mexicans in the US commit a lot of crimes.
Granted, if he were to push ahead with his idea to make Mexico pay for his wall, that might cause quite a bit of consternation between the two countries. Still can't see the Mexicans tearing up NAFTA over that.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can just see Kim Jong Un sabre-rattling, and Trump calling him "stupid" on Twitter.
And making derogatory comments about Kim Jong Un's hair.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What puzzles me is how so many Christian people can support Trump. It would be harder to find a less Christ-like politician, not that this is a very high bar. And after all the previous howling about immorality (Bill Clinton) or possibly being a Muslim (Obama) you would think Trump would be anathema. An article analyzing this question.
What follows is really a "no true Scottsman" argument, but... I'm (perhaps naively) suspicious of the connection between evangelicals and Trump. Even in the Atlantic article, the evidence they're using to support the connection they're drawing is that Trump is winning in states with a lot of evangelicals.
I don't know. But anecdotally, I live, work and socialize (outside of the Ship) almost exclusively in a conservative evangelical bubble. And I have yet to encounter a single one of my conservative Republican evangelical co-workers, friends, church members, or acquaintances who will admit to supporting Trump. A lot of hand-wringing, a lot of moaning, but not one who isn't expressing grave concern about Trump and his hate-filled rhetoric.
Yes, there have been a few prominent evangelical leaders who have indicated support-- but they are ones we have long relegated in the "whackadoodle" category (we evangelicals have more than our share of those, by the way... shouldn't some mental health initiative require, say, Orthodoxen to shoulder their fair share of this burden?). Yes, James and Franklin and Pat, I'm looking at you. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) But the influential evangelical leadership is really staying out of this one (and yes, I think it's irresponsible to "stay out of it" when the stakes are this high).
So I don't really know what's going on-- but am left with a couple of possibilities:
1. The polls are wrong, and evangelicals are far less of a factor in this election than they suggest (perhaps most evangelicals are just staying home, or perhaps evangelicals as a whole have declined substantially from the stats that Atlantic Monthly are drawing from)
2. Faulty definition of "evangelical" (we've been discussing this on another thread) Cue "no true Scottsman"...
3. My particular evangelical sample is skewed leftward either by geography (West Coast), age (I work with a lot of younger people) or my particular work/church/social setting.
or
4. Trump supporters include large numbers of evangelicals who won't own up to their support in public.
Of all the possibilities, I find #4 the scariest by far. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
[ 04. June 2016, 21:09: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
This is ridiculous. He did write a column on Trump's threat to economic integration - it's the one you linked to. He's mentioning Trump's racism in support of his argument. And why shouldn't he? Do you really think Trump's slander of Mexicans promotes international trade?
Well, it might not promote international trade, but I'm not convinced that it's neccessarly gonna hinder it either. If Mexico thinks it benefits from the NAFTA provisions, I doubt they'll opt out just because Trump says Mexicans in the US commit a lot of crimes.
The worry isn't that Mexico will quit NAFTA over Trump's slanders. Trump has already said NAFTA has been a disaster for the US; Simpson mentions Trump's bigotry in passing as supporting evidence of his threat to economic integration.
As for this:
quote:
Trump has said that he would talk to Kim Jong Un, which, assuming he means "...without North Korea having to renounce its nuclear program", is a more amicable posiition than that taken by the current POTUS or Democratic candidate. Of course, with Trump, it's kinda hard to tell what exactly he means a lot of the time.
"Exactly what Trump means" hardly seems relevant anymore when you've reached the point of making up things for him to say so that you can criticize others.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Well, there's this: Trump meeting with evangelical leaders later this month. It will be interesting to see a) who turns up and b) what they say. Clearly Trump is angling for a large number of endorsements.
It will indeed.
Dobson, (Franklin) Graham, Robertson, and Falwell (the son) have already come out for him, so I expect they'll lap this up. None of the above ever represented me or the brand of evangelicalism I associate with, so that's meaningless to me. If any evangelical leader under 50 were to support him, I'd be amazed/ disappointed/ potentially suicidal. Possible exception: Driscoll. Trump seems tailor made for Driscoll. Which is reason enough in itself not to vote for the guy.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I imagine that any talk Trump has with Kim Jong Un will be along the lines of bringing the young fellow back into line, getting him on the rails again, that sort of patronising talk. He would have no comprehension of what Kim's position would be, and would be taken to the cleaners.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
4. Trump supporters include large numbers of evangelicals who won't own up to their support in public.
Of all the possibilities, I find #4 the scariest by far.
It is reckoned that the "Quiet Tories", ie those who didn't answer, gave false responses or fell outside the sample won the 2015 election for the Conservatives in Britain.
eta: there is another group, namely those who stated they would vote for A N Other in the run up, but didn't vote on the day.
[ 05. June 2016, 00:49: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
ABC Di Natale on Trump
This is the leader of the Greens in Australia talking about Bill Shorten's comments on Trump. The Greens' longstanding foreign policy goal is to move Australia to a more independent foreign policy position. He's using Trump as a reason to make that move now.
My personal position is that Di Natale is himself barking mad when it comes to foreign policy, but I will still vote for the Greens because of their position opposing offshore detention of Asylum Seekers. If I thought that the Greens had a hope in hell of influencing our foreign policy I would be all over labor like a fly on rotting meat.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A brief polling roundup of Trump's problems with women.
In related news, bookings at Trump hotels and casinos has nosedived. It's bad marketing, to be repellent. I don't patronize casinos, but I certainly will never stay in a Trump hotel ever.
Oh I would, for the novelty value, after he loses. I would also half-inch everything that was not nailed down.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I would also half-inch everything that was not nailed down.
*tangent* I thought hubby had taught me all the Britishisms. This was a new one for me.
I was relieved to discover it just means "steal". I was afraid it had something to do with Trump's fascination with measuring things.
*end tangent*
[ 05. June 2016, 13:23: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Very amusing, cliffdweller. Me thinks yon simontoad is a bit of a tea-leaf.
Maybe Hillary should talk about half-inches a lot, and wind the Trumpery up.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
This is ridiculous. He did write a column on Trump's threat to economic integration - it's the one you linked to. He's mentioning Trump's racism in support of his argument. And why shouldn't he? Do you really think Trump's slander of Mexicans promotes international trade?
Well, it might not promote international trade, but I'm not convinced that it's neccessarly gonna hinder it either. If Mexico thinks it benefits from the NAFTA provisions, I doubt they'll opt out just because Trump says Mexicans in the US commit a lot of crimes.
The worry isn't that Mexico will quit NAFTA over Trump's slanders. Trump has already said NAFTA has been a disaster for the US; Simpson mentions Trump's bigotry in passing as supporting evidence of his threat to economic integration.
As for this:
quote:
Trump has said that he would talk to Kim Jong Un, which, assuming he means "...without North Korea having to renounce its nuclear program", is a more amicable posiition than that taken by the current POTUS or Democratic candidate. Of course, with Trump, it's kinda hard to tell what exactly he means a lot of the time.
"Exactly what Trump means" hardly seems relevant anymore when you've reached the point of making up things for him to say so that you can criticize others.
I'm not sure I understand your parting sbot there. What is it you think that I am making up about what Trump said?
http://tinyurl.com/js2jhvf
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I imagine that any talk Trump has with Kim Jong Un will be along the lines of bringing the young fellow back into line, getting him on the rails again, that sort of patronising talk. He would have no comprehension of what Kim's position would be, and would be taken to the cleaners.
So, if Trump gets "taken to the cleaners", that means North Korea wins whatever argument they're having? In other words, Trump would be(if only inadvertantly) soft-on-Communism?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
From an article on Trump's judge issues.
quote:
“We’re all behind him now,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell warned, adding that it’s time for unifying the party, not “settling scores and grudges.” “I hope he’ll change his direction.”
I kind of like the concept of "We're all behind him...I hope he changes direction."
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
From an article on Trump's judge issues.
quote:
“We’re all behind him now,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell warned, adding that it’s time for unifying the party, not “settling scores and grudges.” “I hope he’ll change his direction.”
I kind of like the concept of "We're all behind him...I hope he changes direction."
Yeah, it's kinda like "Sure, I trust him to drive me home! Hope he sobers up."
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can just see Kim Jong Un sabre-rattling, and Trump calling him "stupid" on Twitter.
And making derogatory comments about Kim Jong Un's hair.
I can just see it. The Battle of the Bad Hairstyles.
Trouble is both of them would be powerful and I don't think either of them could laugh at himself.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can just see Kim Jong Un sabre-rattling, and Trump calling him "stupid" on Twitter.
And making derogatory comments about Kim Jong Un's hair.
I can just see it. The Battle of the Bad Hairstyles.
Trouble is both of them would be powerful and I don't think either of them could laugh at himself.
Huia
Ps, Kim Jong Un has already been quoted as supporting Trump rather than Clinton.
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
Oh Damn - I rather stuffed up that attempt to edit my post. I'm surprised flood control didn't save me from myself
Huia - the ham-fisted ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What follows is really a "no true Scottsman" argument, but... I'm (perhaps naively) suspicious of the connection between evangelicals and Trump. Even in the Atlantic article, the evidence they're using to support the connection they're drawing is that Trump is winning in states with a lot of evangelicals.
Well, after reading that Atlantic article I was left with similar questions. I wondered how they distinguish between something like your possibility 4, and a variant where people in general (as opposed to evangelicals in particular) are supporting Trump whilst not saying so [ISTM that the states mentioned as having large numbers of evangelicals also have large numbers of conservatives generally].
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
As for this:
quote:
Trump has said that he would talk to Kim Jong Un, which, assuming he means "...without North Korea having to renounce its nuclear program", is a more amicable posiition than that taken by the current POTUS or Democratic candidate. Of course, with Trump, it's kinda hard to tell what exactly he means a lot of the time.
"Exactly what Trump means" hardly seems relevant anymore when you've reached the point of making up things for him to say so that you can criticize others.
I'm not sure I understand your parting sbot there. What is it you think that I am making up about what Trump said?
http://tinyurl.com/js2jhvf
Really? I wouldn't have thought it would be that hard to figure out.
See the part of your earlier post I excerpted where you wrote words in quotation marks? That's the part you apparently would have liked him to have said.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Ah, okay sorry. I was a bit confused.
Anyway...
Going by the opening paragraph in that article, Trump DID mean to imply that KJU would not have to renounce nukes first, because he says(or is at least paraphrased as saying) that the reason he would talk to him is "to try to stop Pyongyang's nuclear program".
If the idea were for KJU to renounce nukes before the conversation, there would be no point in saying that he's gonna have the conversation in order to get him to renounce nukes.
Furthermore, the article claims that Trump's posiiton "contrasts with Presient Barack Obama's policy" of not dealing with KJU directly.
So, assuming Reuters is paraphrasing him correctly, Trump's current position is more dovish than that of Obama or Clinton.
Again, though, I think that once in office, Trump would just revert to the standing GOP position on most issues, including North Korea.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It is very difficult to say what Trump will do, because a) he says anything and everything and b) he is not constrained by logic in any way, and c) he doesn't seem to feel any need to be consistent from one statement to the next.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Furthermore, the article claims that Trump's position "contrasts with Presient Barack Obama's policy" of not dealing with KJU directly.
So, assuming Reuters is paraphrasing him correctly, Trump's current position is more dovish than that of Obama or Clinton.
Accurate but misleading. I believe the Obama administration's position is to favor the resumption of the six-party talks rather than direct, bilateral negotiations. I believe the underlying premise is that any agreement North Korea reached separately with the United States would run aground when clashing with the interests of one of the other interested parties (China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan.) So while it's accurate to portray this as a "contrast", I'm not sure it's necessarily more "dovish". If anything, two-party talks promise to sacrifice regional stability to obtain bilateral accord.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Plus the Obama administration's assumption that progress is better made by State Department officials with regional knowledge and arms control experience rather than by direct talks between heads of state. I'm not sure I'd consider that position to be "hawkish". More like "technocratic".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I imagine that any talk Trump has with Kim Jong Un will be along the lines of bringing the young fellow back into line, getting him on the rails again, that sort of patronising talk. He would have no comprehension of what Kim's position would be, and would be taken to the cleaners.
So, if Trump gets "taken to the cleaners", that means North Korea wins whatever argument they're having? In other words, Trump would be(if only inadvertantly) soft-on-Communism?
Think of Munich and Chamberlain. Trump would have no idea of what was happening and would be done over 3 times backwards before breakfast. The North Koreans would be fighting hard to keep straight faces.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Furthermore, the article claims that Trump's position "contrasts with Presient Barack Obama's policy" of not dealing with KJU directly.
So, assuming Reuters is paraphrasing him correctly, Trump's current position is more dovish than that of Obama or Clinton.
Accurate but misleading. I believe the Obama administration's position is to favor the resumption of the six-party talks rather than direct, bilateral negotiations. I believe the underlying premise is that any agreement North Korea reached separately with the United States would run aground when clashing with the interests of one of the other interested parties (China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan.) So while it's accurate to portray this as a "contrast", I'm not sure it's necessarily more "dovish". If anything, two-party talks promise to sacrifice regional stability to obtain bilateral accord.
Well, yes, but bilateral talks ARE what the North Koreans have been demanding. All I'm saying is that it's somewhat of a turnaround for a GOP politician to be accused of being TOO willing to meet the terms set by an anti-American, Communist regime.
As for whether or not this qualifies as "dovish", well in the post above this one, Gee D compares Trump to Neville Chamberlain. Of course, Chamberlain himself was a right-winger, but during the Cold War, as some of the old-timers here may recall, his name was used analagously to mean "soft on Communism".
Granted, in the Trump/Chamberlain comparison, the idea seems to be that Trump will be too clueless to stand up to the Norks, whereas with the old McGovern(or whoever/Chamberlain comparison, the idea seemed to be that McGovern was secretly pro-Communist, or at least overly trusting of Communists.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
^^ Just to re-encapsulate my point above...
If a DEMOCRAT proposed direct meetings with KJU, his fellow Democrats would do a collective facepalm, the Republicans would scream that he was a traitor, and Ralph Nader would say it was a refrshing change from the usual confrontational foreign-policy.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
^^ Just to re-encapsulate my point above...
If a DEMOCRAT proposed direct meetings with KJU, his fellow Democrats would do a collective facepalm, the Republicans would scream that he was a traitor, and Ralph Nader would say it was a refrshing change from the usual confrontational foreign-policy.
Trump proposes direct meetings because he seems to think he's going to negotiate everything personally. Exactly what he would be negotiating - well, there's no real reason to think that he's given this any thought whatsoever, is there?
You, Stetson, have by now probably spent more time pondering Trump's position on North Korea than Trump himself ever has.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
No, the AP declared her the victor. I guarantee you she'd far rather have had this announced after Tuesday's polls had closed. It stands a good chance of depressing voter turnout, which is beyond frustrating. A lot of down-ticket races ride on turnout.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I wondered about that, RuthW. AP were of course free to do it but it didn't seem all that helpful.
Looks like Bernie is going to soldier on at least for a little bit. Gambling on a California turnaround I suppose, to keep the super delegate argument alive. But it begins to look mean.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
In any case, even assuming Trump doesn't win, he really isn't the problem but merely a symptom. Trump's loss doesn't make his constituency disappear - it'll just set a stage for a repeat of the same thing with a savvier figure in future.
4/8 years of an HRC presidency won't do anything to fix the perception that something is very wrong in the state of the economy and the country.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
No, the AP declared her the victor. I guarantee you she'd far rather have had this announced after Tuesday's polls had closed.
Or better still, after the convention has adjourned.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Trump's loss doesn't make his constituency disappear.
But it does send them back into the sewer where they customarily hang out.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Trump's loss doesn't make his constituency disappear.
But it does send them back into the sewer where they customarily hang out.
It is virtually guaranteed that at this moment in time there is at least one person - savvier than Trump - who plans on being a public figure and who is looking at Trump's campaign and thinking "I bet I can make the same dynamics work for me".
[ 07. June 2016, 11:51: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Well, I teared up when our SBS News announced that Hilary was the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party.What a momentous achievement.
I won't get all Helen Reddy on you just yet, but I can hear the music. Congratulations Hilary and all women the world over.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
None of the polls is forecasting a Sanders win in California; Hillary's advantage ranges from 1% to double digits with a poll of polls advantage of 4%. 538 says Hillary's chances of winning a majority are over 90%. We'll see, of course, but I wouldn't bet on Bernie keeping on keeping on very much longer after tonight's results come in.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
