One line from the speech caught my eye:
America is a nation of believers, dreamers, and strivers that is being led by a group of censors, critics, and cynics.Yes. We've had a solid 7+ years of Shut Up, He Explained. And it's a particular lazy group of freelance censors. Another speaker at the convention was Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur who created PayPal. Thiel is gay, but coming out as gay isn't apparently as deleterious as coming out as a Republican, at least in certain precincts. Today, if my social media feed is any indication, Thiel is a modern-day Roy Cohn. That seems fair, right?
And yet, and yet... there was ample cynicism on display in Cleveland this week. We've reached Bizarro World when a call to vote your conscience gets catcalls. Somewhere, Barry Goldwater, who wrote "The Conscience of a Conservative," is shaking his head.
One factor to watch as the campaign unfolds -- how much will we actually see of Hillary Clinton? Both she and her opponent are pushing 70. Trump is healthy as a horse. Clinton seems to have a number of health problems. I'm not sure Hillary Clinton can give a 70+ minute speech. Trump hit Jeb Bush hard as being "low energy." I suspect he'll use a similar attack on Clinton and I expect it will be effective.
I don't have a horse in this race. The choices on offer are odious. I can't imagine voting for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. But here we are.
26 comments:
i've decided to vote, and it will be for Trump.
If your imagination can gin up the reign of terror and error that would be President Hillary Clinton, your choice may become more clear.
and a bad Trump will absolutely face impeachment... unlike the other choice.
That's disappointing, Gino.
It's probably unlikely my vote will mean anything in Minnesota, just as Gino's may be relatively meaningless in California, but Gino says it for me. I detest Trump, but the cool thing is that so does a lot of the GOP. They will vote to remove him from office if he gets too far out of line.
No such luck with his opponent. Sorry, Brian, I remember 1998, and the fact that Hilliary got the nomination means that Democratic senators will tolerate a LOT more than just perjury and obstruction of justice.
Trump is potentially an extinction level event for our system of government. Clinton is status quo ante. If you can't see the difference you've swallowed way too much bullshit.
And I'm not sorry.
The problem is that the potential extinction level "event" isn't a potential future event, it's a trajectory; and we're already on it.
A Clinton presidency will guarantee that the media won't be thinking honestly about reality; they'll be protecting the president. Trump is a danger, without a doubt, but his presidency would at least mean that there would be tremendous scrutiny of what was going on. It's too bad that they aren't able to do their job in all circumstances, but that's life I guess.
Brian, the only thing I would say in response is that the status quo--a continuation of Obama's crimes like Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Iran, refusing to prosecute his allies when they commit crimes while throwing the book at those he does not like--poses the exact same existential threat as does a Trump presidency. It is the elevation of the executive branch above the other branches of government.
And the Senate might indeed remove Trump from office, but Clinton is guaranteed to have at least 33 Democrats in her corner, just like her husband did in 1998.
Berlusconi vs. Herbert Hoover
...-poses the exact same existential threat as does a Trump presidency.
From The bottom of my heart Bubba: that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen you write.
I don't think either potential presidency is an existential threat. The election turns on whether the status quo is acceptable.
Apparently 83% of those polled find the status quo unacceptable. That's good news for the GOP. And having listened to the whole convention, I'm having a lot of trouble finding something to make Trump unacceptable, or even objectionable.
Brian, your parents must be so proud to have a son who doesn't explain what he means, but when people respond, he insults them. Maybe instead of flinging the poo around, try presenting a real argument?
Sorry, Brian, but you're being a real jerk here. You think it's obvious that Drumpf would be the greater hazard? Awesome--it ought to be easy for you to present it then, shouldn't it?
But that fact that you don't speaks volumes about your argument and your character, Brian, none of it printable.
Somebody needs to explain to me exactly why Trump is problematic, not just in relative terms against Hillary because that case is painfully obvious. I'm reading between the lines of Trump's campaign and speeches, and other than an occasional bout of foot-in-mouth disease, I think he would be a GOOD Chief Executive Officer. I'm waiting to hear more about the "best people" he will get to serve in his administration. If these folks can get over themselves long enough to take the jobs offered, it could be great and long overdue.
Actually, I would be curious to know what makes Trump an extinction level event. I believe he would be a bad president, but do we honestly believe he can personally destroy 240 years of history?
Bubba, I may be pointed and pithy, but I didn't bring your family into it.
As to explaining myself, you guys have access to all the information I do, and have clearly reached different conclusions. My perspective here is plainly a waste of my time and yours.
Okay — let's try it this way, then. My view of the candidates, briefly.
Trump is a menace because his temperament and his instincts are unworthy of the office. If he were to hold the office, it would require a lot of work to constrain him from undertaking destructive policies and behaviors, but there would be a lot of people dedicated to the task.
Hillary Clinton is a menace because she combines fundamental dishonesty and demonstrated incompetence. If she were to hold the office, many people would make excuses for her behavior and defend her in everything she's done, in a manner similar to what we've seen for the past 7+ years.
Which result would be more deleterious to the health of our nation?
Bubba, I may be pointed and pithy, but I didn't bring your family into it.
Yes. That was out of line and I'd appreciate it if we avoid that sort of thing.
Brian, I think what is being asked is how you can /possibly/ reach the conclusions you did. An explanation of your rational processes (assuming such) is necessary or no minds will be changed.
To add to what Mr. D has said...
I preferred Ted Cruz, a straight-forward and articulate conservative, with detailed plans for making things "better." I applauded Trump for his ability to command media attention by being "politically incorrect" and shattering the media's stranglehold on our choice of nominee. I also recognized early on that Trump was doing exactly what all super-rich people do, at some point in their lives. That is, having more money than they can ever spend on themselves, they decide to yield to altruistic interests and give to charity or public service. I really think he wants to help.
Lately I have accepted that he is the nominee, and was pleased to hear how he "listens" and is a "team player." I've seen a lot of evidence of it, and that is reinforced by many of the convention speakers. It cannot all be fluff and nonsense, and his demeanor matches my own (insignificant) leadership style so I know it works. I believe if he can assemble a good "team" of cabinet members and advisers, he may be a VERY effective executive, and depending on who they are, can convince him that conservative solutions are the pragmatic solutions.
And that's ignoring the HUGE positive that he isn't Hillary. You don't have to vote for Trump; just vote against Hillary. Can we agree on that?
Regarding the "family" thing, if my family were to become aware that, without presenting evidence, I'd been accusing others of "swallowing bullshit" and the like, they would be very disappointed. While their comments to me would be pointed and pithy, their description of mine would be nowhere so polite. And that is a good thing.
I assume that Brian's parents are about the same, and that's not bringing family into it except for assuming his parents' good sense--and I make no apology for that.
Again, Brian, if it's so obvious to you, make the case. Yes, we have a decidedly different view of the Clinton and Obama legacy than do you, but reality is that our political views are not innate--they are a result of evidence and experience. Give it a try.
Out of line is out of line, BB. Again, I'd request we not use that form of argumentation in this forum. Thanks.
i'll explain myself again.
the status quo is not working for me and my class of people. meanwhile, those for whom is does work go about like my people are too stupid or unworthy to experience the beauty of it all.
(some of us didnt go to college. we were too busy raising the next generation of taxpayers while paying the taxes that subsidized others people's college...)
Trump might suck as president, but the comfortable need to made less so, while we stir the pot a bit and hopefully begin a change in a different direction that doesnt throw my people to the wolves in order to make shit work again.
Thanks, Gino. You are hardly the only person to come to that conclusion.
To quote George Patton: "A man that eloquent has to be saved." Listening to the Democrats spin lies into fantasies, there is no way they should be entrusted with our governance; they believe they have the divine right.
Post a Comment