8 ms·

Every politician has public and private positions. That's just how politics works. The view the plebs demands often don't align with either the politicians vis

Every politician has public and private positions. That's just how politics works. The view the plebs demands often don't align with either the politicians vision for the country, what's possible near or long term, or the people you are indebted to (donors, etc). In many cases it's acceptable and even advisable, in my opinion. A head of state has insight into facts and knowledge of others about realities and facts that most will / can / not understand (and SOMETIMES shouldn't even be known publicly). What's not acceptable is if a politician is a puppet for donors. The amount of money and network it takes to become president in the US is ridiculous, and basically necessitates being dirty and indebted. --- Also, Clinton is most likely no worse than most previous presidents. There's just considerably more information about her. But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter.

Mikeb85 10y ago
> But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter. Status quo vs. something different. The status quo is that Obama/Hillary have destabilised countless countries, and are sabre rattling against Russia, possibly leading to an eventual nuclear war. By contrast, Trump is promising less wars, less interventionism, and otherwise is a relative wildcard with a penchant towards pragmatism and deal-making. I'm not American, but on paper, it looks like Trump would be an improvement as far as world stability goes, I'd vote for him based on his policy concerning Russia alone. The Clinton/Bush/Obama dynasties have not made the world a better place, have not contributed to anything positive IMO, and judging by all the leaked emails, they're all corrupt as well.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- zzleeper 10y ago
  Given his attitude, Trump seems way more likely to invade other countries and n general sable rattle. Also, I wouldn't call what Obama did sable rattling. Russia did invade several countries in the last years (Georgia, Ukraine, and maybe I'm missing one more?). If you don't have a good response for that, then how can you be trusted to defend your other allies (Poland, etc.)
  - Mikeb85 10y ago
    Georgia attacked first, after the US-sponsored 'Rose Revolution', and the US also sponsored 2 'revolutions' in Ukraine. Crimea was hardly invaded, it was a region which had tried in the past to separate from Ukraine. Again, both actions you cite were reactions to US meddling in the region in the first place. The fact Trump hasn't threatened any new invasions is already an improvement. PS. Do you know who Mikheil Saakashvili is, what he did, where he is now, and why he's exiled from his own country? And have you seen Victor Yushchenko's face recently, what it looks like? The answers to both of these questions give a lot of insight into US actions in the region.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Crimea was hardly invaded Right -- the several thousand army and special forces troops that Putin has since openly acknowledged sending there to size buildings and other strategic checkpoints were just out on vacation.
      - Mikeb85 10y ago
        I don't know if you know this, there's never not been Russian troops in Sevastopol...
        kafkaesq 10y ago
        Actually the Russians are relative newcomers, having just arrived in 1783. Before that time it was controlled by the Crimean Tatars (you know, the people Stalin deported en masse in 1944). And before that, by Khazars, Bulgars, Huns, Goths, Scythians, Romans, Greeks (most significantly), and scads of others. Either way -- the main point is (and presumably you do know this), the leased military base at Sevastopol != the Crimean peninsula.
      - shard972 10y ago
        I mean, those are talking points but it doesn't change the fact geopolitics is more complicated then "Putin invaded Ukraine"
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- yarou 10y ago
  You are very astute, I only wish that my fellow countrymen would wake up to the truth. I truly believe Trump is a populist reformer, trying to help the Everyman. But keep in mind that even though the Populares were nominally "for the people", they only used them for their own ends. They were very much as political as the Optimates. It's a sad state of affairs when a relative madman looks like a saner alternative to a truly sick and twisted authoritarian war-hawk. But perhaps a madman is needed to tear down this malfunctioning and corrupt system where a few elites benefit at the expense of the common man. It wouldn't surprise me if this election is the last one we'll ever have.
  - greendragon 10y ago
    Scott Adams has noted how Trump's views evolve to the people's, I do agree in thinking he's a populist. Would any of the other GOP candidates have had a gay man speak at the RNC? Populists can be dangerous, but they can also do a lot of good. It seems worth a chance in the current environment, though ever since I read this passage from http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm I've been wary of those with mass support: "Nero, Heliogabalus, Otho, Vitellius, and such other monsters of nature, were the minions of the multitude and set up by them. Pertinax, Alexander, Severus, Gordianus, Gallus, Emilianus, Quintilius, Aurelianus, Tacitus, Probus, and Numerianus, all of them good emperors in the judgment of all historians, yet murdered by the multitude."
    - yarou 10y ago
      Thanks for the link, it definitely gives me something to ponder over.
  - alistproducer2 10y ago
    While there are elements of Trump's desire to burn the system to ground that appeal to folks even on the left (like myself), I cannot dissociate the ideas from the man - the very disgusting man.The very thin skinned man who can be easily goaded into self-destructive behavior. The POTUS can literally end humanity with a few words. That's not an exaggeration. I want change as much as the next guy, but not if it means handing the power to start the apocalypse to a man like Donald Trump.
- Merad 10y ago
  > I'm not American, but on paper, it looks like Trump would be an improvement as far as world stability goes, I'd vote for him based on his policy concerning Russia alone. I'm struggling to comprehend how you can look at Trump's statements and come out thinking that he'll improve world stability. Trump thinks that NATO is obsolete - he's happy for the US to abandon it and totally change the balance of power in Europe. He has stated that nuclear proliferation is a good thing, even encouraging an Asian nuclear arms race between the DPRK and ROK/Japan. He's asked, "why can't [the US] use nuclear weapons?"
ihsw 10y ago
There is a difference between what you're describing is different from what is occurring -- she campaigns on LGTB rights and freedoms but her private positions is nothing short of abject disdain for LGTBs. She tries to run on anti-establishment but there is no-one that is more establishment than her. She tries to run on fighting for women's rights but she is an apologist for her husband's sordid history of sexual abuse towards other women, and not only that but she will readily accept funds from people that are the most misogynistic on the face of the Earth (the Gulf monarchies). The difference is her stance is opposite from what she campaigns on -- there is a word for this: hypocrite. She clearly has no moral center.
- darawk 10y ago
  > There is a difference between what you're describing is different from what is occurring -- she campaigns on LGTB rights and freedoms but her private positions is nothing short of abject disdain for LGTBs. Source? > She tries to run on anti-establishment but there is no-one that is more establishment than her. Sure, but that's just marketing, not substance. > She tries to run on fighting for women's rights but she is an apologist for her husband's sordid history of sexual abuse towards other women, and not only that but she will readily accept funds from people that are the most misogynistic on the face of the Earth (the Gulf monarchies). It is not clear that Clinton ever sexually abused women. He cheated on his wife, yes. But that is a far cry from 'sexual abuse'.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM Re: gay rights. How about that cackle? What is a political opportunist? The Clintons have always operated via the polls. Against gay marriage when being against it was popular, now an ardent supporter.
    - darawk 10y ago
      Yes, it is well known that she used to oppose gay marriage. However, what you sourced is not equivalent to: > her private positions is nothing short of abject disdain for LGTBs.
pdx 10y ago
Your cognitive dissonance is astounding, but perhaps understandable. You recognize and admit (as you have no choice doing, after the mountain of proof) that the media willingly prostitutes itself to further the cause of the current administration, with no regard for actual truth. But you allow yourself to be influenced in your opinion of Donald Trump by that same media. Imagine if a mean girl in your office told everybody that you were a brown-nosing little weasel who stared at her all the time, even though it's not true. Nobody will sit next to you at lunch, and you refuse to sit next to Billy, since that same girl said he picks is nose and eats it. Can't you understand that once you know she's a liar, you can't trust her about Billy either?
- the_duke 10y ago
  I don't need the media's opinion on Donald Trump. Watching a video of one of his rallies or a debate is sufficient to form my own opinion. He (is) - lies or distorts the truth almost everytime he opens his mouth - extremely authoritarian - very anti free media (at his rallys, media is cordoned off and he gets the crowd to yell at them for minutes. that is if the outlet hasn't been banned for reporting the truth. I wonder why the media is anti Trump...) - sexist and abusive (enough evidence there, he says so himself) - racist (again, no more evidence needed, he said it all) - only cares about his own interests (yay, big tax cuts for the rich are his tax plan) - very uneducated and uninformed on the actual issues and just generally a disgusting man (my opinion). It might very well be that he is not actually racist and that a lot of what he says is just what works with the crowds. That really doesn't matter much, though. He is a populist par excellence. You can't trust anything he says. And a very dangerous man to be the head of state in a country where that position holds so much power. Were I American, I'd have a hard time voting for Clinton too. But that more than 40% would even consider voting for Trump scares me.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    > very anti free media (at his rallys, media is cordoned off and he gets the crowd to yell at them for minutes. that is if the outlet hasn't been banned for reporting the truth. I wonder why the media is anti Trump...) I guess you haven't been paying attention. Trump was, for many years, a celebrity, making millions of dollars for NBC with his TV shows. Everything about him that they complain about now they happily accepted then, when it suited them. For example, where was this 11-year-old video during the primaries? Answer that question and you will begin to understand what's going on here. This "anti-free-media" claim is weird when you compare it to Clinton's campaign. For nearly a year she had zero press conferences--not even giving the media a chance. Now we find that her campaign specifically wanted to avoid answering any questions, to prevent the media from having a chance to question her about inconvenient stories. And we discover that the mainstream media is actively colluding with her campaign, giving them veto power over stories and quotes, etc. So shouldn't you at least claim that she is as anti-free-media as he is? > But that more than 40% would even consider voting for Trump scares me. There is much more at stake here than these two individual people running for the office. The real contest here is between the movements they represent. One of these two campaigns has been co-opted by a candidate who is not even a member of it. How did this candidate do so? With the help of the media, which vehemently attacked all other candidates during the primaries. Now that same media is trying to destroy that candidate. That candidate is virtually a strawman candidate, set up for the sake of being torn down. So, what does that tell you? Based on that, which candidate--which movement--should one vote for?
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
> What's not acceptable is if a politician is a puppet for donors. Absolutely! I agree wholeheartedly. > The amount of money and network it takes to become president in the US is ridiculous, and basically necessitates being dirty and indebted. I thought we just agreed that politicians should not be puppets? And now they must be dirty and indebted? The situation is definitely ridiculous! > Also, Clinton is most likely no worse than most previous presidents. There's just considerably more information about her. That is certainly a rational outlook on the matter. We are definitely in a period where we have more information available. But something else has changed (some 60 years and just 10 presidents past) - politicians are now evaluated largely according to TV performance, and costs have spiralled out of control. Perhaps when it was much less costly to become president, you didn't need to be dirty and indebted? > But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter. Only this convoluted bit of logic could possibly suffice: I think Clinton would make an acceptable President, and would continue the status quo. There would be little reform-instead, things would just get a little bit worse. Trump would be awful. However, I think that I (and my son, who will not be 18 in this presidency) could probably survive with only moderate loss of personal resources. As a result of that... experiment, I expect that in coming years the DNC and the country in general would institute various reforms that would be good for the long-term health of the country.
artursapek 10y ago
> Every politician has public and private positions. That's just how politics works. Really? Even with binary opinions like supporting gay marriage?
shard972 10y ago
> Every politician has public and private positions. That's just how politics works. So you agree that she is trying to create an alternative reality for private purposes?

Mikeb85 10y ago

> But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter. Status quo vs. something different. The status quo is that Obama/Hillary have destabilised countless countries, and are sabre rattling against Russia, possibly leading to an eventual nuclear war. By contrast, Trump is promising less wars, less interventionism, and otherwise is a relative wildcard with a penchant towards pragmatism and deal-making. I'm not American, but on paper, it looks like Trump would be an improvement as far as world stability goes, I'd vote for him based on his policy concerning Russia alone. The Clinton/Bush/Obama dynasties have not made the world a better place, have not contributed to anything positive IMO, and judging by all the leaked emails, they're all corrupt as well.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zzleeper 10y ago
Given his attitude, Trump seems way more likely to invade other countries and n general sable rattle. Also, I wouldn't call what Obama did sable rattling. Russia did invade several countries in the last years (Georgia, Ukraine, and maybe I'm missing one more?). If you don't have a good response for that, then how can you be trusted to defend your other allies (Poland, etc.)
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  Georgia attacked first, after the US-sponsored 'Rose Revolution', and the US also sponsored 2 'revolutions' in Ukraine. Crimea was hardly invaded, it was a region which had tried in the past to separate from Ukraine. Again, both actions you cite were reactions to US meddling in the region in the first place. The fact Trump hasn't threatened any new invasions is already an improvement. PS. Do you know who Mikheil Saakashvili is, what he did, where he is now, and why he's exiled from his own country? And have you seen Victor Yushchenko's face recently, what it looks like? The answers to both of these questions give a lot of insight into US actions in the region.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Crimea was hardly invaded Right -- the several thousand army and special forces troops that Putin has since openly acknowledged sending there to size buildings and other strategic checkpoints were just out on vacation.
    - Mikeb85 10y ago
      I don't know if you know this, there's never not been Russian troops in Sevastopol...
      - kafkaesq 10y ago
        Actually the Russians are relative newcomers, having just arrived in 1783. Before that time it was controlled by the Crimean Tatars (you know, the people Stalin deported en masse in 1944). And before that, by Khazars, Bulgars, Huns, Goths, Scythians, Romans, Greeks (most significantly), and scads of others. Either way -- the main point is (and presumably you do know this), the leased military base at Sevastopol != the Crimean peninsula.
    - shard972 10y ago
      I mean, those are talking points but it doesn't change the fact geopolitics is more complicated then "Putin invaded Ukraine"
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
yarou 10y ago
You are very astute, I only wish that my fellow countrymen would wake up to the truth. I truly believe Trump is a populist reformer, trying to help the Everyman. But keep in mind that even though the Populares were nominally "for the people", they only used them for their own ends. They were very much as political as the Optimates. It's a sad state of affairs when a relative madman looks like a saner alternative to a truly sick and twisted authoritarian war-hawk. But perhaps a madman is needed to tear down this malfunctioning and corrupt system where a few elites benefit at the expense of the common man. It wouldn't surprise me if this election is the last one we'll ever have.
- greendragon 10y ago
  Scott Adams has noted how Trump's views evolve to the people's, I do agree in thinking he's a populist. Would any of the other GOP candidates have had a gay man speak at the RNC? Populists can be dangerous, but they can also do a lot of good. It seems worth a chance in the current environment, though ever since I read this passage from http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm I've been wary of those with mass support: "Nero, Heliogabalus, Otho, Vitellius, and such other monsters of nature, were the minions of the multitude and set up by them. Pertinax, Alexander, Severus, Gordianus, Gallus, Emilianus, Quintilius, Aurelianus, Tacitus, Probus, and Numerianus, all of them good emperors in the judgment of all historians, yet murdered by the multitude."
  - yarou 10y ago
    Thanks for the link, it definitely gives me something to ponder over.
- alistproducer2 10y ago
  While there are elements of Trump's desire to burn the system to ground that appeal to folks even on the left (like myself), I cannot dissociate the ideas from the man - the very disgusting man.The very thin skinned man who can be easily goaded into self-destructive behavior. The POTUS can literally end humanity with a few words. That's not an exaggeration. I want change as much as the next guy, but not if it means handing the power to start the apocalypse to a man like Donald Trump.
Merad 10y ago
> I'm not American, but on paper, it looks like Trump would be an improvement as far as world stability goes, I'd vote for him based on his policy concerning Russia alone. I'm struggling to comprehend how you can look at Trump's statements and come out thinking that he'll improve world stability. Trump thinks that NATO is obsolete - he's happy for the US to abandon it and totally change the balance of power in Europe. He has stated that nuclear proliferation is a good thing, even encouraging an Asian nuclear arms race between the DPRK and ROK/Japan. He's asked, "why can't [the US] use nuclear weapons?"

ihsw 10y ago

There is a difference between what you're describing is different from what is occurring -- she campaigns on LGTB rights and freedoms but her private positions is nothing short of abject disdain for LGTBs. She tries to run on anti-establishment but there is no-one that is more establishment than her. She tries to run on fighting for women's rights but she is an apologist for her husband's sordid history of sexual abuse towards other women, and not only that but she will readily accept funds from people that are the most misogynistic on the face of the Earth (the Gulf monarchies). The difference is her stance is opposite from what she campaigns on -- there is a word for this: hypocrite. She clearly has no moral center.

darawk 10y ago
> There is a difference between what you're describing is different from what is occurring -- she campaigns on LGTB rights and freedoms but her private positions is nothing short of abject disdain for LGTBs. Source? > She tries to run on anti-establishment but there is no-one that is more establishment than her. Sure, but that's just marketing, not substance. > She tries to run on fighting for women's rights but she is an apologist for her husband's sordid history of sexual abuse towards other women, and not only that but she will readily accept funds from people that are the most misogynistic on the face of the Earth (the Gulf monarchies). It is not clear that Clinton ever sexually abused women. He cheated on his wife, yes. But that is a far cry from 'sexual abuse'.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM Re: gay rights. How about that cackle? What is a political opportunist? The Clintons have always operated via the polls. Against gay marriage when being against it was popular, now an ardent supporter.
  - darawk 10y ago
    Yes, it is well known that she used to oppose gay marriage. However, what you sourced is not equivalent to: > her private positions is nothing short of abject disdain for LGTBs.

pdx 10y ago

Your cognitive dissonance is astounding, but perhaps understandable. You recognize and admit (as you have no choice doing, after the mountain of proof) that the media willingly prostitutes itself to further the cause of the current administration, with no regard for actual truth. But you allow yourself to be influenced in your opinion of Donald Trump by that same media. Imagine if a mean girl in your office told everybody that you were a brown-nosing little weasel who stared at her all the time, even though it's not true. Nobody will sit next to you at lunch, and you refuse to sit next to Billy, since that same girl said he picks is nose and eats it. Can't you understand that once you know she's a liar, you can't trust her about Billy either?

the_duke 10y ago
I don't need the media's opinion on Donald Trump. Watching a video of one of his rallies or a debate is sufficient to form my own opinion. He (is) - lies or distorts the truth almost everytime he opens his mouth - extremely authoritarian - very anti free media (at his rallys, media is cordoned off and he gets the crowd to yell at them for minutes. that is if the outlet hasn't been banned for reporting the truth. I wonder why the media is anti Trump...) - sexist and abusive (enough evidence there, he says so himself) - racist (again, no more evidence needed, he said it all) - only cares about his own interests (yay, big tax cuts for the rich are his tax plan) - very uneducated and uninformed on the actual issues and just generally a disgusting man (my opinion). It might very well be that he is not actually racist and that a lot of what he says is just what works with the crowds. That really doesn't matter much, though. He is a populist par excellence. You can't trust anything he says. And a very dangerous man to be the head of state in a country where that position holds so much power. Were I American, I'd have a hard time voting for Clinton too. But that more than 40% would even consider voting for Trump scares me.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > very anti free media (at his rallys, media is cordoned off and he gets the crowd to yell at them for minutes. that is if the outlet hasn't been banned for reporting the truth. I wonder why the media is anti Trump...) I guess you haven't been paying attention. Trump was, for many years, a celebrity, making millions of dollars for NBC with his TV shows. Everything about him that they complain about now they happily accepted then, when it suited them. For example, where was this 11-year-old video during the primaries? Answer that question and you will begin to understand what's going on here. This "anti-free-media" claim is weird when you compare it to Clinton's campaign. For nearly a year she had zero press conferences--not even giving the media a chance. Now we find that her campaign specifically wanted to avoid answering any questions, to prevent the media from having a chance to question her about inconvenient stories. And we discover that the mainstream media is actively colluding with her campaign, giving them veto power over stories and quotes, etc. So shouldn't you at least claim that she is as anti-free-media as he is? > But that more than 40% would even consider voting for Trump scares me. There is much more at stake here than these two individual people running for the office. The real contest here is between the movements they represent. One of these two campaigns has been co-opted by a candidate who is not even a member of it. How did this candidate do so? With the help of the media, which vehemently attacked all other candidates during the primaries. Now that same media is trying to destroy that candidate. That candidate is virtually a strawman candidate, set up for the sake of being torn down. So, what does that tell you? Based on that, which candidate--which movement--should one vote for?

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

> What's not acceptable is if a politician is a puppet for donors. Absolutely! I agree wholeheartedly. > The amount of money and network it takes to become president in the US is ridiculous, and basically necessitates being dirty and indebted. I thought we just agreed that politicians should not be puppets? And now they must be dirty and indebted? The situation is definitely ridiculous! > Also, Clinton is most likely no worse than most previous presidents. There's just considerably more information about her. That is certainly a rational outlook on the matter. We are definitely in a period where we have more information available. But something else has changed (some 60 years and just 10 presidents past) - politicians are now evaluated largely according to TV performance, and costs have spiralled out of control. Perhaps when it was much less costly to become president, you didn't need to be dirty and indebted? > But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter. Only this convoluted bit of logic could possibly suffice: I think Clinton would make an acceptable President, and would continue the status quo. There would be little reform-instead, things would just get a little bit worse. Trump would be awful. However, I think that I (and my son, who will not be 18 in this presidency) could probably survive with only moderate loss of personal resources. As a result of that... experiment, I expect that in coming years the DNC and the country in general would institute various reforms that would be good for the long-term health of the country.

artursapek 10y ago

> Every politician has public and private positions. That's just how politics works. Really? Even with binary opinions like supporting gay marriage?

shard972 10y ago

> Every politician has public and private positions. That's just how politics works. So you agree that she is trying to create an alternative reality for private purposes?