Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Some thoughts on the second debate

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 8:11:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Liberal commentators found much to complain about in Trump's performance last night, but one thing in particular seems to have offended them the most: Trump's promise to push for further criminal investigations against Clinton if he's elected president. Some have made comparisons to corrupt African dictators who throw political opponents in jail by the hundreds, asking themselves in an absurd tone of somber revelation how a politician so corrupt could be this close from becoming president of the United States. They seem to have forgotten that even if President Trump wanted to, he would have no authority to arbitrarily put Clinton in jail, which is why he never made such an absurd promise. Rather, he promised that if he were elected president, he would see to it that proper investigations be made into Clinton's alleged criminal past, the idea being that past investigations were compromised the fact that the FBI was under enormous pressure to make sure their findings came out the "right way," given that half of American political power had a huge stake in the game, not to mention the influence of a Democratic president. If she is in fact innocent of the crimes Trump and many others believes she is guilty of -- and really, that's an indispensable component of any serious criticism of Trump's pledge -- she has nothing to fear, assuming the judicial system works the way it's supposed to. When they express fear over this prospect, they unwittingly reveal what they actually think of the judicial system: a system out of which elites get what they want. Thus, when they defend Hillary's innocence by appeal to the FBI's decision not to indict her, we know they're being full of sh1t.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that Trump's promise to go after Clinton is the exact opposite of political corruption: it's an attempt to fight back against it, and to score perfectly legitimate points among those who are fed up with the system. To send a symbolic message to the rest of the political establishment that their elite status is no guarantee that their criminal behavior will go unpunished in the future, which is, in essence, what Trump's whole movement is about - fighting back against a corrupt and incompetent political elite, at least as Trump and his supporters see it. Perhaps they agree with the content of Trump's promise and the basic attitude behind it, but wish he had put it less trenchantly or done it privately. In that case, they are basically whining that Trump does not adhere to a code of manners designed to protect the elite, according to which it "wouldn't do to say certain things" -- Trump, a man who has more or less openly declared war on the political establishment.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 8:54:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 8:11:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Liberal commentators found much to complain about in Trump's performance last night, but one thing in particular seems to have offended them the most: Trump's promise to push for further criminal investigations against Clinton if he's elected president. Some have made comparisons to corrupt African dictators who throw political opponents in jail by the hundreds, asking themselves in an absurd tone of somber revelation how a politician so corrupt could be this close from becoming president of the United States. They seem to have forgotten that even if President Trump wanted to, he would have no authority to arbitrarily put Clinton in jail, which is why he never made such an absurd promise. Rather, he promised that if he were elected president, he would see to it that proper investigations be made into Clinton's alleged criminal past, the idea being that past investigations were compromised the fact that the FBI was under enormous pressure to make sure their findings came out the "right way," given that half of American political power had a huge stake in the game, not to mention the influence of a Democratic president. If she is in fact innocent of the crimes Trump and many others believes she is guilty of -- and really, that's an indispensable component of any serious criticism of Trump's pledge -- she has nothing to fear, assuming the judicial system works the way it's supposed to. When they express fear over this prospect, they unwittingly reveal what they actually think of the judicial system: a system out of which elites get what they want. Thus, when they defend Hillary's innocence by appeal to the FBI's decision not to indict her, we know they're being full of sh1t.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that Trump's promise to go after Clinton is the exact opposite of political corruption: it's an attempt to fight back against it, and to score perfectly legitimate points among those who are fed up with the system. To send a symbolic message to the rest of the political establishment that their elite status is no guarantee that their criminal behavior will go unpunished in the future, which is, in essence, what Trump's whole movement is about - fighting back against a corrupt and incompetent political elite, at least as Trump and his supporters see it. Perhaps they agree with the content of Trump's promise and the basic attitude behind it, but wish he had put it less trenchantly or done it privately. In that case, they are basically whining that Trump does not adhere to a code of manners designed to protect the elite, according to which it "wouldn't do to say certain things" -- Trump, a man who has more or less openly declared war on the political establishment.

Yeah, this whole race, every time Trump says something like this, the media comes out and says that it will 'ruin' him, and it's adopted as a rallying cry by overly credulous people, it eventually falls flat, and the media loses credibility as a result while Trump gets coverage. Look at the disabled reporter for the perfect example. Or the PTSD incident. Both of these were complete misrepresentation, that were adopted by people who already supported Hillary, but which incredulous people looked into and found to be entirely spurious. They're doing the same thing with the 'pvssy grab' tape; what could have been legitimately damaging is instead being discredited because they are touting it as an admission of sexual assault, which is ludicrous.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 7:35:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 8:54:22 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/10/2016 8:11:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Liberal commentators found much to complain about in Trump's performance last night, but one thing in particular seems to have offended them the most: Trump's promise to push for further criminal investigations against Clinton if he's elected president. Some have made comparisons to corrupt African dictators who throw political opponents in jail by the hundreds, asking themselves in an absurd tone of somber revelation how a politician so corrupt could be this close from becoming president of the United States. They seem to have forgotten that even if President Trump wanted to, he would have no authority to arbitrarily put Clinton in jail, which is why he never made such an absurd promise. Rather, he promised that if he were elected president, he would see to it that proper investigations be made into Clinton's alleged criminal past, the idea being that past investigations were compromised the fact that the FBI was under enormous pressure to make sure their findings came out the "right way," given that half of American political power had a huge stake in the game, not to mention the influence of a Democratic president. If she is in fact innocent of the crimes Trump and many others believes she is guilty of -- and really, that's an indispensable component of any serious criticism of Trump's pledge -- she has nothing to fear, assuming the judicial system works the way it's supposed to. When they express fear over this prospect, they unwittingly reveal what they actually think of the judicial system: a system out of which elites get what they want. Thus, when they defend Hillary's innocence by appeal to the FBI's decision not to indict her, we know they're being full of sh1t.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that Trump's promise to go after Clinton is the exact opposite of political corruption: it's an attempt to fight back against it, and to score perfectly legitimate points among those who are fed up with the system. To send a symbolic message to the rest of the political establishment that their elite status is no guarantee that their criminal behavior will go unpunished in the future, which is, in essence, what Trump's whole movement is about - fighting back against a corrupt and incompetent political elite, at least as Trump and his supporters see it. Perhaps they agree with the content of Trump's promise and the basic attitude behind it, but wish he had put it less trenchantly or done it privately. In that case, they are basically whining that Trump does not adhere to a code of manners designed to protect the elite, according to which it "wouldn't do to say certain things" -- Trump, a man who has more or less openly declared war on the political establishment.

Yeah, this whole race, every time Trump says something like this, the media comes out and says that it will 'ruin' him, and it's adopted as a rallying cry by overly credulous people, it eventually falls flat, and the media loses credibility as a result while Trump gets coverage. Look at the disabled reporter for the perfect example. Or the PTSD incident. Both of these were complete misrepresentation, that were adopted by people who already supported Hillary, but which incredulous people looked into and found to be entirely spurious. They're doing the same thing with the 'pvssy grab' tape; what could have been legitimately damaging is instead being discredited because they are touting it as an admission of sexual assault, which is ludicrous.

So what's the deal with the Trump "mocking" disabled reporter incident? I heard that what looked like mockery of someone with cerebral palsy was actually just the way he makes fun of everyone, as he's mocked people without cerebral palsy in similar ways before.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 11:24:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 7:35:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/10/2016 8:54:22 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/10/2016 8:11:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Liberal commentators found much to complain about in Trump's performance last night, but one thing in particular seems to have offended them the most: Trump's promise to push for further criminal investigations against Clinton if he's elected president. Some have made comparisons to corrupt African dictators who throw political opponents in jail by the hundreds, asking themselves in an absurd tone of somber revelation how a politician so corrupt could be this close from becoming president of the United States. They seem to have forgotten that even if President Trump wanted to, he would have no authority to arbitrarily put Clinton in jail, which is why he never made such an absurd promise. Rather, he promised that if he were elected president, he would see to it that proper investigations be made into Clinton's alleged criminal past, the idea being that past investigations were compromised the fact that the FBI was under enormous pressure to make sure their findings came out the "right way," given that half of American political power had a huge stake in the game, not to mention the influence of a Democratic president. If she is in fact innocent of the crimes Trump and many others believes she is guilty of -- and really, that's an indispensable component of any serious criticism of Trump's pledge -- she has nothing to fear, assuming the judicial system works the way it's supposed to. When they express fear over this prospect, they unwittingly reveal what they actually think of the judicial system: a system out of which elites get what they want. Thus, when they defend Hillary's innocence by appeal to the FBI's decision not to indict her, we know they're being full of sh1t.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that Trump's promise to go after Clinton is the exact opposite of political corruption: it's an attempt to fight back against it, and to score perfectly legitimate points among those who are fed up with the system. To send a symbolic message to the rest of the political establishment that their elite status is no guarantee that their criminal behavior will go unpunished in the future, which is, in essence, what Trump's whole movement is about - fighting back against a corrupt and incompetent political elite, at least as Trump and his supporters see it. Perhaps they agree with the content of Trump's promise and the basic attitude behind it, but wish he had put it less trenchantly or done it privately. In that case, they are basically whining that Trump does not adhere to a code of manners designed to protect the elite, according to which it "wouldn't do to say certain things" -- Trump, a man who has more or less openly declared war on the political establishment.

Yeah, this whole race, every time Trump says something like this, the media comes out and says that it will 'ruin' him, and it's adopted as a rallying cry by overly credulous people, it eventually falls flat, and the media loses credibility as a result while Trump gets coverage. Look at the disabled reporter for the perfect example. Or the PTSD incident. Both of these were complete misrepresentation, that were adopted by people who already supported Hillary, but which incredulous people looked into and found to be entirely spurious. They're doing the same thing with the 'pvssy grab' tape; what could have been legitimately damaging is instead being discredited because they are touting it as an admission of sexual assault, which is ludicrous.

So what's the deal with the Trump "mocking" disabled reporter incident? I heard that what looked like mockery of someone with cerebral palsy was actually just the way he makes fun of everyone, as he's mocked people without cerebral palsy in similar ways before.

The reporter doesn't have cerebral palsy, he has a condition which immobilizes and disfigures his wrists (arthrogryposis). Donald Trump's 'flailing' hand motion is just something that he does; he used it on several occasions to mock Ted Cruz and an general, and usually does it as an impersonation of a flustered, incompetent person. When he used it for the reporter, he was mocking the fact that the reporter attempted to rescind a story which was embarrassing to the Washington Post. The Post started the 'mocking a disabled reporter' narrative by selectively editing that clip and failing to mention the nature of Kovaleski's disability, which causes the exact opposite of flailing hands. They then systematically deleted comments on the article which sought to correct the record.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -