[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2016-August-03, 15:48, said:

(I assume "he" refers to Roger Stones.)
I think the psychology of surrogates is always that they want to please the campaign. They wouldn't act as surrogates if they don't think the campaign has a chance to win. And a campaign that might win is a campaign that might be in charge of needing many bodies to fill government jobs.
Meanwhile, what's in it for Roger Stones to be a surrogate unless he sees himself as a team player for team Trump? This kind of ***** won't help him anywhere except within that team.

I don't know Roger Stone from DT's mother, but I am getting the idea he is not a team player. Neother is DT, fo that matter.

At any rate, if DT were all that upset bt Stone's views he could disown them. As far as I know he hasn't. So ot is fair to say that if a Trump buddy goes on about the need for civil disobedience if DT should lose the election, DT is not all that opposed to the idea.


I saw tonight that Priebus is said to be apoplectic over Trump's non-endorsement of McCain and Ryan. Good. A little apoplexy could be useful.

[MrAce]

Oh well...I was not planning on to vote this year but you all wired me up. I really hate to be forced to choose between 2 bad candidates, but you all convinced me that 1 of them is REALLY BAD! (I do not watch TV)

Count 1 more vote against that clown!

[cherdano]

I find this clip amazing. It made the news for Trump saying "Would you get the baby out of here", minutes after saying "I love babies".
http://talkingpoints...-him-outta-here
But I would only consider that the 3rd-most outrageous thing he said in these 100 seconds!

• He still claims China is artificially devaluing its currency, even though it has been doing the exact opposite quite a while.
  
• He mocks a mother trying to calm her baby ("She believed me!").

I remember a time when each of the above would have been enough to seriously hurt a candidate's campaign...and of course none of them would make a top 20 of the most outrageous things Trump has said the last 3 days. A candidate mocking a supporter for having believed him!

[mike777]

As a long time Liberal it would be nice to vote for someone with a liberal agenda. A traditional Liberal agenda. Even a conservative agenda might garner my vote.
-----------------


At this point it seems who ever sends voters the bigger check wins. Voters want a check a big check. Trump seems at best to be unworthy.

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2016-August-04, 00:26, said:

A traditional Liberal agenda.

You understand that "a traditional Liberal agenda" has little to do with neo-liberalism, right? If Winston is right about your beliefs, I find it fairly offensive that you would corrupt a term that everyone else understands in a particular way that is used throughout the world. It would perhaps be interesting to find out which of us is "more Liberal".

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-04, 02:52, said:

You understand that "a traditional Liberal agenda" has little to do with neo-liberalism, right? If Winston is right about your beliefs, I find it fairly offensive that you would corrupt a term that everyone else understands in a particular way that is used throughout the world. It would perhaps be interesting to find out which of us is "more Liberal".

You do understand that Mike777 is a LaRouchie?

The words he uses and the concepts that he believe in have little relationship to the state of reality as the rest of us understand it.

[Zelandakh]

hrothgar, on 2016-August-04, 04:44, said:

You do understand that Mike777 is a LaRouchie?

That is the third classification is short order, one from the left, one from the right and one from the centre. Could it be that he simply posts nonsense and others read into it what they want to see?

[PassedOut]

Voices From Donald Trump’s Rallies, Uncensored

Unpleasant

[barmar]

cherdano, on 2016-August-04, 00:14, said:

But I would only consider that the 3rd-most outrageous thing he said in these 100 seconds!

One of the late night comedy shows, I don't remember which, pointed out that traditional politicians deal with gaffes by trying to apologize or backpedal. DT, instead, just goes on to make more outrageous comments, eclipsing the previous ones (they presented a montage).

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2016-August-04, 00:26, said:

As a long time Liberal it would be nice to vote for someone with a liberal agenda. A traditional Liberal agenda. Even a conservative agenda might garner my vote.
-----------------


At this point it seems who ever sends voters the bigger check wins. Voters want a check a big check. Trump seems at best to be unworthy.

So, Mike, what did Adam Smith look like in person?

[Winstonm]

Quote

I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.

http://mobile.nytime...inton.html?_r=0

Quote

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.

[kenberg]

Sometime back I suggested that the more well to do who might still be undecided about Trump ask themselves a question. Suppose the opportunity rose to partner with Trump in a business deal. Would they commit a substantial amount of their own money to such a deal, trusting that Mr. Trump will work cooperatively and effectively in partnership? I think most people would be about as willing to do that as they would be to invest in a partnership with someone who just needs a partner with a little seed money to help get his millions in gold coins out of Nigeria. Bloomberg had it right, except you really do not have to be from New York to recognize a con when you see it.

Anyway, I don't really care whether Ryan does or does not retract his endorsement of Trump. His choice, he can live with it. But sometime back he, Ryan, said he did not think that he could work with a President Hillary Clinton. Have we not had enough of this? He does not have to vote for her, he does have to work with her.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-August-05, 08:42, said:

Anyway, I don't really care whether Ryan does or does not retract his endorsement of Trump. His choice, he can live with it. But sometime back he, Ryan, said he did not think that he could work with a President Hillary Clinton. Have we not had enough of this? He does not have to vote for her, he does have to work with her.

I think you're interpreting it too literally. Of course he'll work with her (unless he resigns from Congress), he's just saying that he can't work effectively with her, because they'll disagree on most policies -- it will be the same kind of gridlock we've had between Congress and Obama.

That's pretty much always true these days when the Congressional majority and POTUS are from different parties, but I guess a statement like that implies that it will be even more severe with her than usual. But it could also just be political rhetoric.

[olegru]

kenberg, on 2016-August-05, 08:42, said:

Suppose the opportunity rose to partner with Trump in a business deal. Would they commit a substantial amount of their own money to such a deal, trusting that Mr. Trump will work cooperatively and effectively in partnership?

But is there are any top level politician who would pass that test?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2015-August-18, 22:58, said:

If true, that would make him the number one candidate IMO.

I think I could trust Tim Kaine in a business deal. I am pretty sure I could trust Hillary Clinton. Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham also come to mind as trustworthy.

[olegru]

15 years ago being a new American I studied English in Riverside language school. (By the way, I love that school.) One day we discussed the stereotypes about emigrants from different countries and somebody said that Russian Americans are much less tend to trust compare to other Americans. I found that observation to be very true.

Winstonm, on 2016-August-05, 11:39, said:

I think I could trust Tim Kaine in a business deal. I am pretty sure I could trust Hillary Clinton. Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham also come to mind as trustworthy.

Sorry, in my list of politician who I would not trust even to hold a bag with my dog’s droppings, Hilary is on the third place. Trump is on the second.

[kenberg]

olegru, on 2016-August-05, 14:40, said:

15 years ago being a new American I studied English in Riverside language school. (By the way, I love that school.) One day we discussed the stereotypes about emigrants from different countries and somebody said that Russian Americans are much less tend to trust compare to other Americans. I found that observation to be very true.

A colleague who emigrated from the Soviet Union back when It was the Soviet Union told a story that might support this. He was assigned to demonstrate statistically that the average Soviet worker was better off than the average US worker. As he put it: "I had a wife and family, so I demonstrated that the average Soviet worker was better off than the average US worker. And I applied for an exit".

[cherdano]

olegru, on 2016-August-05, 14:40, said:

Sorry, in my list of politician who I would not trust even to hold a bag with my dog’s droppings, Hilary is on the third place. Trump is on the second.

I think you are severely misreading Clinton. Why do you think so many in her party endorsed her? In no small part because they have come to trust her based on their personal interactions with her.
I have never understood why Clinton is considered so untrustworthy. Yes, she has shifted some policy positions - but are there really more of those than for Obama, taking into account how long she has been in national politics?

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2016-August-05, 08:42, said:

Anyway, I don't really care whether Ryan does or does not retract his endorsement of Trump. His choice, he can live with it. But sometime back he, Ryan, said he did not think that he could work with a President Hillary Clinton. Have we not had enough of this? He does not have to vote for her, he does have to work with her.

http://nymag.com/dai...-paul-ryan.html

Quote

But it is precisely Ryan’s reputation for sincerity that allows him to follow his present course. The essence of Paul Ryan’s career is an uncanny knack for being defined by his stated aspirations rather than his actions. He is a deficit hawk who spent the 1990s and 2000s supporting deficit-increasing measures, and pushing to make them even more profligate. He is passionate about anti-poverty policy even though his own policy priorities require massive cuts to the anti-poverty budget. He wants desperately to write a detailed health-care-reform plan but does not actually do it.

Ryan was able to sell the US press, and to a large extent the US public, to the idea that he did care about poverty, even though all his policy proposal indicate the opposite. Etc. I am sure he'll be able to sell to the US press that he was really against Trump.

If someone considers Clinton untrustworthy and Ryan trustworthy, then they live in an alternate reality compared to mine.

[Winstonm]

olegru, on 2016-August-05, 14:40, said:

15 years ago being a new American I studied English in Riverside language school. (By the way, I love that school.) One day we discussed the stereotypes about emigrants from different countries and somebody said that Russian Americans are much less tend to trust compare to other Americans. I found that observation to be very true.



Sorry, in my list of politician who I would not trust even to hold a bag with my dog’s droppings, Hilary is on the third place. Trump is on the second.

Why do you mistrust Hillary? And please, be precise, as I really don't understand why there is so much antagonism toward her. Thanks.