Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Some Thoughts on Hillary and Donald

YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 8:31:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Tej asked me to write some thoughts on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many of you will recall that I would be willing to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and some have suggested that my preference in that regard doesn't make much sense. This post will elucidate why I hold that preference, and perhaps persuade you to feel similarly.

Hillary Clinton is someone who, though surely a competent and even adroit politician, is at the same time not someone who I trust to handle the United States in any respect. Rather, I expect from her what we all should expect of her: conventional center-left domestic policy, and a garden variety Washington foreign policy paradigm.

When I say "conventional center left domestic policy" what I mean is the continuation of the status quo, more or less, which I don't really take issue with, save the disastrous policies her husband signed into law in the 1990s. NAFTA, The 1994 Crime bill, the 1995 expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act, and repealing Glass Stegall are my "beefs" with Bill. I don't especially like DOMA either (also a Clinton thing), though I understand that the realistic choice was between DOMA or a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -because that is how insane the Republican party was under Newt Gingrich's reign, with noted pedophile Dennis Hastert, who Gingrich knew was a pedophile yet employed him anyway.

NAFTA is the single most disastrous piece of supra-national trade agreement that has ever been signed into law for American workers, especially for American manufacturing. It caused American manufacturing jobs to leave the United States for such countries as Mexico, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea, and the like. NAFTA has nearly destroyed the middle class, and it came into existence because of the fact that Bill Clinton was a democratic whore, much like his wife.

The 1994 Crime Bill created the mass incarceration epidemic we have now (i.e. one out of every four black men will spend time in prison at some point in their life, and the technical term for this is a "crime against humanity"). It resulted in a tremendous waste of tax money and has caused trans-generational harm to minority and urban families. It was signed immediately after NAFTA to preempt the foreseeable crime wave that NAFTA would cause due to the soaring unemployment and underemployment the said trade agreement would cause.

The 1995 expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act caused something called the "subprime mortgage" to come into existence, and caused the 2008 financial collapse, in tandem with the kinds of financial witchcraft that became legal once Glass Steagall was repealed. Bush did not cause the 2008 financial collapse; Bill Clinton did, and Bush took the fall, unfairly. Democrats, however, will never acknowledge this. Bill Clinton expanded the CRA and repealed Glass Stegall for the same reason he signed NAFTA: due to pressure from big business, ergo, the appropriateness of his calling code of "democratic whore."

The theme of Bill Clinton's presidency is congruent with what I expect from Hillary: terrible judgment that hurts the American Middle Class and enriches big business. It is hilariously ironic that Hillary even discusses "breaking up" the "big banks" because the only reason banks got to become what they are now is due to the legislative screw ups her husband signed into law. I have every reason to think that Hillary's presidency would be identical to Bill's, because they subscribe to the exact same way of thinking regardless of the empty promises she tosses out about building on Obama's legacy.

Donald Trump has repudiated each and every one of these mistakes, and has offered very good reasons to suggest that he understands why Bill Clinton made so many mistakes, whereas Hillary Clinton "toes the line" between pretending to respect Barack Obama and trying not to be haunted by her husband's legacy.

Trump has favored protectionist tariffs, which would help the American middle class and undo the tremendous damage that NAFTA has caused, or at least ameliorate some of the effects. Trump has criticized Clinton's crime bill and suggested that we reconsider how we approach criminal justice. Trump has abundantly criticized the impact that big money has in politics, which makes me think he will be less susceptible to economic pressures like Bill and Hillary Clinton have throughout the course of their career.

Regarding foreign policy, Hillary has personally involved herself in each and every one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions in the last two decades. To that end, her judgment has consistently been poor, and her views on the middle east are nothing less than what I would regard as "causally contributory to why we are in the bad situation we're in now." Indeed, it should come as no surprise to you that Hillary personally contributed to, among other problems, getting involved in the Iraq War, the stupidity in Libya, and the lack of American influence in South America, Asia, and Africa. But for Barack Obama's clear headed wisdom, we would be involved in yet another war in Syria, even more weak than we already are. I have no reason to think that Hillary's disasterously poor judgment with respect to foreign policy will change any time soon, and every reason to believe that she will continue with the same deceivingly banal, idiotic, conventional foreign policies that Republicans and Democrats have more or less agreed on since the Reagan years.

Unlike Hillary, Trump has demonstrated significant competence in grasping the nexus between economic and geopolitical power, and how to use both to reinforce one another. Hillary does not grasp that. Trump sees the world as a whole; Hillary sees only discrete regions, and misses the impact that, for example, injudicious expenditures of American military force might have in another. Likely, this is because she thinks like a political and not a businessman. The kind of "strategy" that businessmen use is different than that which would be conventional for a career politician in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular. Obama, ironically enough, thinks like a businessman.

I expect Donald Trump to do less damage to the United States than Hillary Clinton would. That is why I would vote for him, over her.

I do not care that he's bombastic, rude, crude, probably a sexist, and a little crazy. He is a more palatable candidate than Hillary Clinton will ever be, if your priorities are properly organized. If you believe that a president should be someone who talks like a politician, says one thing to one group of people and another thing to another, shows consistently bad judgement that results in catastrophic damage to the American middle class and the American economy, but who nevertheless "looks" and "sounds" like a president, then by all means vote for Hillary Clinton.

The fact that he's rough around the edges does not scare me away, as it does with many. It's reassuring, because he thinks in a way that is clear, predictable, reasonable, and practical. Clinton doesn't think; she follows the polls, says what they say (and in so doing lies to the American people), and then proceeds to do whatever big business wants her to do. That is not what I want in a president, and that is why I will never support her.

Of course, I'd never support Ted Cruz either, because he is exactly what she is, just better at it, though with less experience.
Tsar of DDO
Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 8:59:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 8:31:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Tej asked me to write some thoughts on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many of you will recall that I would be willing to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and some have suggested that my preference in that regard doesn't make much sense. This post will elucidate why I hold that preference, and perhaps persuade you to feel similarly.

Hillary Clinton is someone who, though surely a competent and even adroit politician, is at the same time not someone who I trust to handle the United States in any respect. Rather, I expect from her what we all should expect of her: conventional center-left domestic policy, and a garden variety Washington foreign policy paradigm.


I got this far and had some thoughts on Donald Trump;

Donald Trump is someone who, though surely a competent and even adroit Business man, is at the same time not someone who I trust to handle the United States in any respect. Rather, I expect from him what we all should expect of him: crack pot center-right non-sense policy.

I dont really have time to read your whole post, but I assure you I will. I have been unable to find anyone willing to vote for trump with half a brain. That stated, you are clearly intelligent so I will read this later as I thought an intelligent Trump support was a myth.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:02:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 8:59:11 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 4/15/2016 8:31:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Tej asked me to write some thoughts on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many of you will recall that I would be willing to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and some have suggested that my preference in that regard doesn't make much sense. This post will elucidate why I hold that preference, and perhaps persuade you to feel similarly.

Hillary Clinton is someone who, though surely a competent and even adroit politician, is at the same time not someone who I trust to handle the United States in any respect. Rather, I expect from her what we all should expect of her: conventional center-left domestic policy, and a garden variety Washington foreign policy paradigm.


I got this far and had some thoughts on Donald Trump;

Donald Trump is someone who, though surely a competent and even adroit Business man, is at the same time not someone who I trust to handle the United States in any respect. Rather, I expect from him what we all should expect of him: crack pot center-right non-sense policy.

I dont really have time to read your whole post, but I assure you I will. I have been unable to find anyone willing to vote for trump with half a brain. That stated, you are clearly intelligent so I will read this later as I thought an intelligent Trump support was a myth.

Yes, do read the post. Also note that there are many more intelligent Trump supporters than you might think. You simply don't hear about them, though, because most intelligent Trump supporters are at the same time bright enough to understand that supporting him is a major faux pas. So, they don't talk about it, but they will vote for him.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:04:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 8:59:11 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 4/15/2016 8:31:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Tej asked me to write some thoughts on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many of you will recall that I would be willing to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and some have suggested that my preference in that regard doesn't make much sense. This post will elucidate why I hold that preference, and perhaps persuade you to feel similarly.

Hillary Clinton is someone who, though surely a competent and even adroit politician, is at the same time not someone who I trust to handle the United States in any respect. Rather, I expect from her what we all should expect of her: conventional center-left domestic policy, and a garden variety Washington foreign policy paradigm.


I got this far and had some thoughts on Donald Trump;

Donald Trump is someone who, though surely a competent and even adroit Business man, is at the same time not someone who I trust to handle the United States in any respect. Rather, I expect from him what we all should expect of him: crack pot center-right non-sense policy.

I dont really have time to read your whole post, but I assure you I will. I have been unable to find anyone willing to vote for trump with half a brain. That stated, you are clearly intelligent so I will read this later as I thought an intelligent Trump support was a myth.

The lesser of 2 devils.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:23:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
It's kind of interesting that within the economics profession, free trade is overwhelmingly preferred, but not so among the general public. Something like 90 percent of economists across the political spectrum are opposed to protectionist policies, compared with 60 percent for the average voter. Not saying that the economists are right, but I suspect the issue is more complex than most people are lead to believe, and I highly doubt that Trump is one of the people who knows what he's talking about in these regards.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:39:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:23:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
It's kind of interesting that within the economics profession, free trade is overwhelmingly preferred, but not so among the general public. Something like 90 percent of economists across the political spectrum are opposed to protectionist policies, compared with 60 percent for the average voter.

Economists prioritize efficiency over human welfare; efficiency is the end unto itself, and, when economic systems are oriented towards efficiency, where we measure that by the extent to which value is created, that can (and often does) translate to disastrous human outcomes.

That line of thinking began with David Riccardo, and it's been downhill ever since; it's like dogma among economists now.

Not saying that the economists are right, but I suspect the issue is more complex than most people are lead to believe, and I highly doubt that Trump is one of the people who knows what he's talking about in these regards.

You shouldn't be so skeptical. Trump went to Wharton, which is bar none the best business school in the world.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 10:11:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I should clarify, I think, that I am NOT a member of the new or the alt right. I'm a libertarian socialist, with anarchist inclinations.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:16:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:39:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:23:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
It's kind of interesting that within the economics profession, free trade is overwhelmingly preferred, but not so among the general public. Something like 90 percent of economists across the political spectrum are opposed to protectionist policies, compared with 60 percent for the average voter.

Economists prioritize efficiency over human welfare; efficiency is the end unto itself, and, when economic systems are oriented towards efficiency, where we measure that by the extent to which value is created, that can (and often does) translate to disastrous human outcomes.

That line of thinking began with David Riccardo, and it's been downhill ever since; it's like dogma among economists now.

I think a fairer characterization is that economists tend to stick to the numbers, which allegedly show that free trade is a good thing for the economy overall, despite the damage it inflicts on certain sectors of the workforce, since that damage is offset by advantages that are dispersed very widely and thus invisible to most people. So while most people get caught up in the anecdotal sob stories of suffering factory workers and don't consider the possibility that their hardships are perhaps justified by improvement in other sectors of the economy and overall efficiency (lowers prices means people can buy more things), economists view it in terms of a cost-benefit analysis, and don't focus too heavily on the suffering of a select, but very visible, few.

Not saying that the economists are right, but I suspect the issue is more complex than most people are lead to believe, and I highly doubt that Trump is one of the people who knows what he's talking about in these regards.

You shouldn't be so skeptical. Trump went to Wharton, which is bar none the best business school in the world.

Trump only spent two years there after transferring from some random Catholic school in New York, and didn't graduate from the MBA program. Some report that he got admitted because of family connections, although I don't know how that can be verified. "A 2011 Salon magazine article refers to a 2001 book called "The Trumps: Three Generations That Built an Empire," by Gwenda Blair. It says that Trump"s grades at Fordham, a Jesuit school in New York, had been "respectable," and that he was admitted to Penn after an interview with a "friendly" Wharton admissions officer who was an old classmate of Trump"s older brother."

He didn't graduate with honors, and refuses to release his grades despite criticizing Obama for doing just that.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:29:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
" NAFTA " we hafta" - Bill Clinton.
The Clintons work as a team, and they are left of center.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:34:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
One of the principles in NAFTA is if the Mexicans can get jobs in Mexico they won't have to come to the U.S.
Therefore, the Clintons are racist!
Look, I feel that the illegal immigrants are welcome here, as long as they obey our laws
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:40:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 11:34:14 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
One of the principles in NAFTA is if the Mexicans can get jobs in Mexico they won't have to come to the U.S.
Therefore, the Clintons are racist!
Look, I feel that the illegal immigrants are welcome here, as long as they obey our laws
I think mass deportations are the best outcome here as well
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
tejretics
Posts: 6,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:01:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:39:29 PM, YYW wrote:
Economists prioritize efficiency over human welfare.

^This

It has bewildered me to see economists who think the minimum wage causes significant unemployment still support it with a logic like "the MW increases efficiency, and one efficient man is better than 10 non-efficient workers." Efficiency is important, sure, but ten people getting employed outweighs one "efficient" guy. And I'm not even saying the MW causes unemployment--I even support a minimum wage hike since I don't believe the effects on employment will be significant. But the point is, if you do buy huge unemployment effects, efficiency doesn't outweigh it that much.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:11:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
If you're going to compare Hillary to Trump you need to do so on equal grounds. Attacking Hillary's record when Trump doesn't have one is meaningless.
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:26:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:11:40 AM, Double_R wrote:
If you're going to compare Hillary to Trump you need to do so on equal grounds. Attacking Hillary's record when Trump doesn't have one is meaningless.

Yes, all I read is Trump understand this or that, and says this or that, without any actual of evidence or record of him acting on such wisdom
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:34:13 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:11:40 AM, Double_R wrote:
If you're going to compare Hillary to Trump you need to do so on equal grounds. Attacking Hillary's record when Trump doesn't have one is meaningless.

So you are not interested in Trump, because he isn't a politician?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:34:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:26:29 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:11:40 AM, Double_R wrote:
If you're going to compare Hillary to Trump you need to do so on equal grounds. Attacking Hillary's record when Trump doesn't have one is meaningless.

Yes, all I read is Trump understand this or that, and says this or that, without any actual of evidence or record of him acting on such wisdom

Then you must not have read...
Tsar of DDO
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:38:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 8:31:12 PM, YYW wrote:
Tej asked me to write some thoughts on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many of you will recall that I would be willing to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and some have suggested that my preference in that regard doesn't make much sense. This post will elucidate why I hold that preference, and perhaps persuade you to feel similarly.

Hillary Clinton is someone who, though surely a competent and even adroit politician, is at the same time not someone who I trust to handle the United States in any respect. Rather, I expect from her what we all should expect of her: conventional center-left domestic policy, and a garden variety Washington foreign policy paradigm.

When I say "conventional center left domestic policy" what I mean is the continuation of the status quo, more or less, which I don't really take issue with, save the disastrous policies her husband signed into law in the 1990s. NAFTA, The 1994 Crime bill, the 1995 expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act, and repealing Glass Stegall are my "beefs" with Bill. I don't especially like DOMA either (also a Clinton thing), though I understand that the realistic choice was between DOMA or a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -because that is how insane the Republican party was under Newt Gingrich's reign, with noted pedophile Dennis Hastert, who Gingrich knew was a pedophile yet employed him anyway.

NAFTA is the single most disastrous piece of supra-national trade agreement that has ever been signed into law for American workers, especially for American manufacturing. It caused American manufacturing jobs to leave the United States for such countries as Mexico, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea, and the like. NAFTA has nearly destroyed the middle class, and it came into existence because of the fact that Bill Clinton was a democratic whore, much like his wife.

The 1994 Crime Bill created the mass incarceration epidemic we have now (i.e. one out of every four black men will spend time in prison at some point in their life, and the technical term for this is a "crime against humanity"). It resulted in a tremendous waste of tax money and has caused trans-generational harm to minority and urban families. It was signed immediately after NAFTA to preempt the foreseeable crime wave that NAFTA would cause due to the soaring unemployment and underemployment the said trade agreement would cause.

The 1995 expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act caused something called the "subprime mortgage" to come into existence, and caused the 2008 financial collapse, in tandem with the kinds of financial witchcraft that became legal once Glass Steagall was repealed. Bush did not cause the 2008 financial collapse; Bill Clinton did, and Bush took the fall, unfairly. Democrats, however, will never acknowledge this. Bill Clinton expanded the CRA and repealed Glass Stegall for the same reason he signed NAFTA: due to pressure from big business, ergo, the appropriateness of his calling code of "democratic whore."

The theme of Bill Clinton's presidency is congruent with what I expect from Hillary: terrible judgment that hurts the American Middle Class and enriches big business. It is hilariously ironic that Hillary even discusses "breaking up" the "big banks" because the only reason banks got to become what they are now is due to the legislative screw ups her husband signed into law. I have every reason to think that Hillary's presidency would be identical to Bill's, because they subscribe to the exact same way of thinking regardless of the empty promises she tosses out about building on Obama's legacy.

Donald Trump has repudiated each and every one of these mistakes, and has offered very good reasons to suggest that he understands why Bill Clinton made so many mistakes, whereas Hillary Clinton "toes the line" between pretending to respect Barack Obama and trying not to be haunted by her husband's legacy.

Trump has favored protectionist tariffs, which would help the American middle class and undo the tremendous damage that NAFTA has caused, or at least ameliorate some of the effects. Trump has criticized Clinton's crime bill and suggested that we reconsider how we approach criminal justice. Trump has abundantly criticized the impact that big money has in politics, which makes me think he will be less susceptible to economic pressures like Bill and Hillary Clinton have throughout the course of their career.

Regarding foreign policy, Hillary has personally involved herself in each and every one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions in the last two decades. To that end, her judgment has consistently been poor, and her views on the middle east are nothing less than what I would regard as "causally contributory to why we are in the bad situation we're in now." Indeed, it should come as no surprise to you that Hillary personally contributed to, among other problems, getting involved in the Iraq War, the stupidity in Libya, and the lack of American influence in South America, Asia, and Africa. But for Barack Obama's clear headed wisdom, we would be involved in yet another war in Syria, even more weak than we already are. I have no reason to think that Hillary's disasterously poor judgment with respect to foreign policy will change any time soon, and every reason to believe that she will continue with the same deceivingly banal, idiotic, conventional foreign policies that Republicans and Democrats have more or less agreed on since the Reagan years.

Unlike Hillary, Trump has demonstrated significant competence in grasping the nexus between economic and geopolitical power, and how to use both to reinforce one another. Hillary does not grasp that. Trump sees the world as a whole; Hillary sees only discrete regions, and misses the impact that, for example, injudicious expenditures of American military force might have in another. Likely, this is because she thinks like a political and not a businessman. The kind of "strategy" that businessmen use is different than that which would be conventional for a career politician in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular. Obama, ironically enough, thinks like a businessman.

I expect Donald Trump to do less damage to the United States than Hillary Clinton would. That is why I would vote for him, over her.

I do not care that he's bombastic, rude, crude, probably a sexist, and a little crazy. He is a more palatable candidate than Hillary Clinton will ever be, if your priorities are properly organized. If you believe that a president should be someone who talks like a politician, says one thing to one group of people and another thing to another, shows consistently bad judgement that results in catastrophic damage to the American middle class and the American economy, but who nevertheless "looks" and "sounds" like a president, then by all means vote for Hillary Clinton.

The fact that he's rough around the edges does not scare me away, as it does with many. It's reassuring, because he thinks in a way that is clear, predictable, reasonable, and practical. Clinton doesn't think; she follows the polls, says what they say (and in so doing lies to the American people), and then proceeds to do whatever big business wants her to do. That is not what I want in a president, and that is why I will never support her.

Of course, I'd never support Ted Cruz either, because he is exactly what she is, just better at it, though with less experience.

I agree with everything you've said here. 10/10
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:52:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:34:29 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:26:29 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:11:40 AM, Double_R wrote:
If you're going to compare Hillary to Trump you need to do so on equal grounds. Attacking Hillary's record when Trump doesn't have one is meaningless.

Yes, all I read is Trump understand this or that, and says this or that, without any actual of evidence or record of him acting on such wisdom

Then you must not have read...
No I read your post fully.

'Hillary Clinton is someone who, though surely a competent and even adroit politician, is at the same time not someone who I trust to handle the United States in any respect. Rather, I expect from her what we all should expect of her: conventional center-left domestic policy, and a garden variety Washington foreign policy paradigm.

When I say "conventional center left domestic policy" what I mean is the continuation of the status quo, more or less, which I don't really take issue with, save the disastrous policies her husband signed into law in the 1990s. NAFTA, The 1994 Crime bill, the 1995 expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act, and repealing Glass Stegall are my "beefs" with Bill. I don't especially like DOMA either (also a Clinton thing), though I understand that the realistic choice was between DOMA or a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -because that is how insane the Republican party was under Newt Gingrich's reign, with noted pedophile Dennis Hastert, who Gingrich knew was a pedophile yet employed him anyway.

NAFTA is the single most disastrous piece of supra-national trade agreement that has ever been signed into law for American workers, especially for American manufacturing. It caused American manufacturing jobs to leave the United States for such countries as Mexico, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea, and the like. NAFTA has nearly destroyed the middle class, and it came into existence because of the fact that Bill Clinton was a democratic whore, much like his wife.

The 1994 Crime Bill created the mass incarceration epidemic we have now (i.e. one out of every four black men will spend time in prison at some point in their life, and the technical term for this is a "crime against humanity"). It resulted in a tremendous waste of tax money and has caused trans-generational harm to minority and urban families. It was signed immediately after NAFTA to preempt the foreseeable crime wave that NAFTA would cause due to the soaring unemployment and underemployment the said trade agreement would cause.

The 1995 expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act caused something called the "subprime mortgage" to come into existence, and caused the 2008 financial collapse, in tandem with the kinds of financial witchcraft that became legal once Glass Steagall was repealed. Bush did not cause the 2008 financial collapse; Bill Clinton did, and Bush took the fall, unfairly. Democrats, however, will never acknowledge this. Bill Clinton expanded the CRA and repealed Glass Stegall for the same reason he signed NAFTA: due to pressure from big business, ergo, the appropriateness of his calling code of "democratic whore."

The theme of Bill Clinton's presidency is congruent with what I expect from Hillary: terrible judgment that hurts the American Middle Class and enriches big business. It is hilariously ironic that Hillary even discusses "breaking up" the "big banks" because the only reason banks got to become what they are now is due to the legislative screw ups her husband signed into law. I have every reason to think that Hillary's presidency would be identical to Bill's, because they subscribe to the exact same way of thinking regardless of the empty promises she tosses out about building on Obama's legacy.

Donald Trump has repudiated each and every one of these mistakes, and has offered very good reasons to suggest that he understands why Bill Clinton made so many mistakes, whereas Hillary Clinton "toes the line" between pretending to respect Barack Obama and trying not to be haunted by her husband's legacy.

Trump has favored protectionist tariffs, which would help the American middle class and undo the tremendous damage that NAFTA has caused, or at least ameliorate some of the effects. Trump has criticized Clinton's crime bill and suggested that we reconsider how we approach criminal justice. Trump has abundantly criticized the impact that big money has in politics, which makes me think he will be les susceptible to economic pressures like Bill and Hillary Clinton have throughout the course of their career.

Regarding foreign policy, Hillary has personally involved herself in each and every one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions in the last two decades. To that end, her judgment has consistently been poor, and her views on the middle east are nothing less than what I would regard as "causally contributory to why we are in the bad situation we're in now." Indeed, it should come as no surprise to you that Hillary personally contributed to, among other problems, getting involved in the Iraq War, the stupidity in Libya, and the lack of American influence in South America, Asia, and Africa. But for Barack Obama's clear headed wisdom, we would be involved in yet another war in Syria, even more weak than we already are. I have no reason to think that Hillary's disasterously poor judgment with respect to foreign policy will change any time soon, and every reason to believe that she will continue with the same deceivingly banal, idiotic, conventional foreign policies that Republicans and Democrats have more or less agreed on since the Reagan years.

Unlike Hillary, Trump has demonstrated significant competence in grasping the nexus between economic and geopolitical power, and how to use both to reinforce one another. Hillary does not grasp that. Trump sees the world as a whole; Hillary sees only discrete regions, and misses the impact that, for example, injudicious expenditures of American military force might have in another. Likely, this is because she thinks like a political and not a businessman. The kind of "strategy" that businessmen use is different than that which would be conventional for a career politician in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular. Obama, ironically enough, thinks like a businessman.

I expect Donald Trump to do less damage to the United States than Hillary Clinton would. That is why I would vote for him, over her.

I do not care that he's bombastic, rude, crude, probably a sexist, and a little crazy. He is a more palatable candidate than Hillary Clinton will ever be, if your priorities are properly organized. If you believe that a president should be someone who talks like a politician, says one thing to one group of people and another thing to another, shows consistently bad judgement that results in catastrophic damage to the American middle class and the American economy, but who nevertheless "looks" and "sounds" like a president, then by all means vote for Hillary Clinton.

The fact that he's rough around the edges does not scare me away, as it does with many. It's reassuring, because he thinks in a way that is clear, predictable, reasonable, and practical. Clinton doesn't think; she follows the polls, says what they say (and in so doing lies to the American people), and then proceeds to do whatever big business wants her to do. That is not what I want in a president, and that is why I will never support her.

Of course, I'd never support Ted Cruz either, because he is exactly what she is, just better at it, though with less experience.'

Key words: has repudiated, has offered, has favored, has criticized ,has demonstrated grasp, he sees

I see no objective claims based on actual evidence or record, just glorified versions of "he's said this or tha
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 6:37:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:52:32 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:34:29 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:26:29 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:11:40 AM, Double_R wrote:
If you're going to compare Hillary to Trump you need to do so on equal grounds. Attacking Hillary's record when Trump doesn't have one is meaningless.

Yes, all I read is Trump understand this or that, and says this or that, without any actual of evidence or record of him acting on such wisdom

Then you must not have read...
No I read your post fully.

You said that **all** you read was that Trump understood or said "this or that." So, you did not read anything about Hillary. Thus, you didn't read the whole post, or you misrepresented what you read.

But, your mistake aside, what exactly are you wanting? Me to hold your hand through Donald Trump's ideological platform and leadership strategy?
Tsar of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 1:37:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:34:13 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:11:40 AM, Double_R wrote:
If you're going to compare Hillary to Trump you need to do so on equal grounds. Attacking Hillary's record when Trump doesn't have one is meaningless.

So you are not interested in Trump, because he isn't a politician?

Well yea, you don't hire a mechanic to fix your toilet.

But my greater point is that you are not presenting a fair comparison. It's easy to slice up someone's political record and pull out every single negative thing within it, especially someone who has been around as long as Clinton. That doesn't give us any reason to vote for Trump over Clinton, which is what your OP basically implies. You're comparing her actual record to his theoretical record. I don't see how that advances a meaningful discussion.
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 2:39:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 1:37:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:34:13 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:11:40 AM, Double_R wrote:
If you're going to compare Hillary to Trump you need to do so on equal grounds. Attacking Hillary's record when Trump doesn't have one is meaningless.

So you are not interested in Trump, because he isn't a politician?

Well yea, you don't hire a mechanic to fix your toilet.

But my greater point is that you are not presenting a fair comparison. It's easy to slice up someone's political record and pull out every single negative thing within it, especially someone who has been around as long as Clinton. That doesn't give us any reason to vote for Trump over Clinton, which is what your OP basically implies. You're comparing her actual record to his theoretical record. I don't see how that advances a meaningful discussion.

+1
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:57:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 1:37:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:34:13 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:11:40 AM, Double_R wrote:
If you're going to compare Hillary to Trump you need to do so on equal grounds. Attacking Hillary's record when Trump doesn't have one is meaningless.

So you are not interested in Trump, because he isn't a politician?

Well yea, you don't hire a mechanic to fix your toilet.

But my greater point is that you are not presenting a fair comparison. It's easy to slice up someone's political record and pull out every single negative thing within it, especially someone who has been around as long as Clinton. That doesn't give us any reason to vote for Trump over Clinton, which is what your OP basically implies. You're comparing her actual record to his theoretical record. I don't see how that advances a meaningful discussion.

I certainly understand that you feel that way, but what you're saying doesn't get us anywhere. The fact is that Hillary Clinton is a career politician, and Donald Trump is not. So, their records are going to look differently.

Trump has a career in business, Hillary doesn't. Hillary has a career in political matters, Trump doesn't. Their records correlate to their past actions, obviously.

Your analogy to the mechanic to fix your toilet is kind of funny, but apt for reasons you probably don't get. Toilets are incredibly simple devices. Any idiot can fix a toilet that's broken, or even replace one. It's very easy, and I've personally done it five times. I'm not a plumber, and I'm certainly not a mechanic. The impact is that it doesn't require "special skills" to fix a toilet. You can call a plumber, but that's not your only option. If you've got a mechanic around, there's a pretty good chance he'll be able to solve your problem, again, because toilets are pretty simple devices.

Just as a toilet doesn't require special expertise to run, the presidency doesn't really either. It's the kind of job where you need three things: (1) you've got to be able to learn new information quickly, (2) make decisions on the basis of that information, and (3) explain those decisions to Americans and other world leaders. That same skill set is involved even more in business than it is in politics because of the intensely competitive nature of the marketplace.

Now, we can wax philosophical about how different politics and business are, but at the end of the day those discussions don't matter because the skills from one are transferrable to the other, and it goes both ways. This is why, for example, the concept like a revolving door is a thing (i.e. the notion that political people go into the private sector, and private sector go into the public sector, and may make this transition several times over their careers).

So, your criticism of Trump doesn't really hold a lot of weight with me, or with I think anyone who has a solid enough level of practical experience to understand the similarities between politics and business. Clearly, the kid who supported what you said here would likely fall into that category of people. It's not that he's dumb, so much as he just doesn't know what he's talking about, and he likes Hillary.
Tsar of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 4:20:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:57:16 PM, YYW wrote:
Your analogy to the mechanic to fix your toilet is kind of funny, but apt for reasons you probably don't get. Toilets are incredibly simple devices. Any idiot can fix a toilet that's broken, or even replace one. It's very easy, and I've personally done it five times.

All of which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point of the analogy.

Just as a toilet doesn't require special expertise to run, the presidency doesn't really either.

This is where you lose all credibility to have a serious discussion on the matter. If I had a wall of shame I would sig this.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 4:24:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:57:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 1:37:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:34:13 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:11:40 AM, Double_R wrote:
If you're going to compare Hillary to Trump you need to do so on equal grounds. Attacking Hillary's record when Trump doesn't have one is meaningless.

So you are not interested in Trump, because he isn't a politician?

Well yea, you don't hire a mechanic to fix your toilet.

But my greater point is that you are not presenting a fair comparison. It's easy to slice up someone's political record and pull out every single negative thing within it, especially someone who has been around as long as Clinton. That doesn't give us any reason to vote for Trump over Clinton, which is what your OP basically implies. You're comparing her actual record to his theoretical record. I don't see how that advances a meaningful discussion.

I certainly understand that you feel that way, but what you're saying doesn't get us anywhere. The fact is that Hillary Clinton is a career politician, and Donald Trump is not. So, their records are going to look differently.

Trump has a career in business, Hillary doesn't. Hillary has a career in political matters, Trump doesn't. Their records correlate to their past actions, obviously.

Your analogy to the mechanic to fix your toilet is kind of funny, but apt for reasons you probably don't get.

Lol. Only you could take an off-hand example and make it applicable. ;P

Welcome back!
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 4:35:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:01:59 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:39:29 PM, YYW wrote:
Economists prioritize efficiency over human welfare.

^This

It has bewildered me to see economists who think the minimum wage causes significant unemployment still support it with a logic like "the MW increases efficiency, and one efficient man is better than 10 non-efficient workers." Efficiency is important, sure, but ten people getting employed outweighs one "efficient" guy. And I'm not even saying the MW causes unemployment--I even support a minimum wage hike since I don't believe the effects on employment will be significant. But the point is, if you do buy huge unemployment effects, efficiency doesn't outweigh it that much.

Not too many economists who support MW think it causes "significant unemployment", let alone to the extent that MW produces 10 unemployed people for every "efficient worker". I don't know where you're getting this from.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 4:40:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 4:20:34 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:57:16 PM, YYW wrote:
Your analogy to the mechanic to fix your toilet is kind of funny, but apt for reasons you probably don't get. Toilets are incredibly simple devices. Any idiot can fix a toilet that's broken, or even replace one. It's very easy, and I've personally done it five times.

All of which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point of the analogy.

Just as a toilet doesn't require special expertise to run, the presidency doesn't really either.

This is where you lose all credibility to have a serious discussion on the matter. If I had a wall of shame I would sig this.

What you mean by "credibility" here is interesting, because it seems like your test for who is credible and who is not is whether people agree with you. I understand that, but you're not really making much of a point. But your analogy just didn't do what you wanted it to do, though, which presumably is why you're taking issue with my sort of "exploring" the finer details of it.

I understand that you are never going to like Trump, and you're never going to vote for him. You're free to your opinion, of course. But, your opinion is just that, an opinion. And if you support Hillary Clinton, then you're supporting someone who has demonstrated consistently bad judgment over the course of her entire political career. Maybe you want someone who had bad judgment but talks "all nice and good." That's certainly fine, but I don't.

What you could have done to more reasonably advance your point is this: talk about Trump's business record. There's a legitimate discussion to be had on the issue of whether Trump is as good as he says he is, but the "business" standard is how we're going to evaluate him just as the "political" standard is how we're going to evaluate Hillary.

The major point of this post, which perhaps was lost on you and that other kid who liked what you said, was opposition to Hillary more than support of Trump. At the end of the day, he's a better alternative, because she is horrible.

What you haven't done, though, is dispute that she is horrible and has done horrible things. So, you must agree with me on that?

I mean, really.... the beginning and end of your little issue here is the fact that Hillary has a record in politics, and you don't like me talking about it. That's pretty dumb, because what other way would I evaluate her? As a voter, what more is there? Shall I consult a crystal ball (other than Larry Sabato's haha)? Shall I invoke the ouija board? Shall I perform a rain dance and hope that I get the right answer that way?

Obviously I'll do none of those things, but those are the (demonstrably absurd) alternatives to evaluating Hillary based on her record. She has one, and to ignore that fact is akin to putting your head in the sand. I'm not a sand-headed voter...
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 4:40:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 4:24:27 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:57:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 1:37:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:34:13 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:11:40 AM, Double_R wrote:
If you're going to compare Hillary to Trump you need to do so on equal grounds. Attacking Hillary's record when Trump doesn't have one is meaningless.

So you are not interested in Trump, because he isn't a politician?

Well yea, you don't hire a mechanic to fix your toilet.

But my greater point is that you are not presenting a fair comparison. It's easy to slice up someone's political record and pull out every single negative thing within it, especially someone who has been around as long as Clinton. That doesn't give us any reason to vote for Trump over Clinton, which is what your OP basically implies. You're comparing her actual record to his theoretical record. I don't see how that advances a meaningful discussion.

I certainly understand that you feel that way, but what you're saying doesn't get us anywhere. The fact is that Hillary Clinton is a career politician, and Donald Trump is not. So, their records are going to look differently.

Trump has a career in business, Hillary doesn't. Hillary has a career in political matters, Trump doesn't. Their records correlate to their past actions, obviously.

Your analogy to the mechanic to fix your toilet is kind of funny, but apt for reasons you probably don't get.

Lol. Only you could take an off-hand example and make it applicable. ;P

Welcome back!

Thanks!
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 4:42:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 2:39:41 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 1:37:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:34:13 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:11:40 AM, Double_R wrote:
If you're going to compare Hillary to Trump you need to do so on equal grounds. Attacking Hillary's record when Trump doesn't have one is meaningless.

So you are not interested in Trump, because he isn't a politician?

Well yea, you don't hire a mechanic to fix your toilet.

But my greater point is that you are not presenting a fair comparison. It's easy to slice up someone's political record and pull out every single negative thing within it, especially someone who has been around as long as Clinton. That doesn't give us any reason to vote for Trump over Clinton, which is what your OP basically implies. You're comparing her actual record to his theoretical record. I don't see how that advances a meaningful discussion.

+1

If you're persuaded by that, then I would suggest that you wake up and smell the coffee. There is no way to evaluate Hillary Clinton other than her (disastrous) record, to suggest otherwise is to entertain absurdity.
Tsar of DDO