do we start worying about trump for president?

[RobG]

I hope this thread can stay civil and on track. I think it could have some value in our observations of where we are at in this country, such that we can have two large dominant parties with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend and as much/more in free media attention, yet these two are the supposedly their party's "most qualified" according to the results of their primary voters.

Ranting on one another is not going to change any minds, so don't go there. Feel free to give your observations. I am interested in seeing more discussion, but not the normal level of schoolyard chicanery that often accompanies a thread about politics or candidates.

My observation is that regardless of who you vote for, or if you vote for a third/fourth party candidate, or if you vote for a write-in, the fact that these two are the remaining choices shows why American optimism is so low. If this is all we can produce for leaders of the next four years, we don't have a lot to be optimistic about.

Add to that a Congress that does absolutely nothing, has not done anything for 30 years, and it is easy to be pessimistic. Congress has been a far bigger PITA to America over the last 30 years than any of the Presidents who have sat in the Oval Office during that time. Congress knows that every four years they get a free pass for most of them sitting on their arses and collecting unearned paychecks, thanks to the Presidential election. Until those clowns get off the R and D team buses, I expect much more the same.

I am thankful that I have structured my life such that my economic future is as distantly influenced by this messed up election result as I can possibly make it. Two hucksters, two insiders, and we are supposed to choose as a function of which candidate offends us the least. The "Race to Zero" is gaining momentum.

Whatever the end result, I hope people decide to take a look at how screwed up this process is, how incestuous the two parties really are, and hopefully Americans plan to do something a bit more profound in their actions four years from now when we get to vote again. Neither side has anything to be proud of and can speak of no measurable benefit they have provided. Thankfully America has some very ingenious/industrious citizens who can persevere in spite of the obstacles Congress and the two parties want to selfishly place in the path of progress.

The rest of the world must be looking on in disbelief that a country as great as America cannot cleanse itself of the parasitic infestation of a corrupt two-party system that come to closely resemble professional wrasslin', each needing a villan for their own relevance, puffing their chests and posturing against the other while in the public arena, only to go out for cocktails following the match.

I fear to rhetorically ask, "Can we do any worse?" as the answer might be, "Yes, we can, and we will. Just give it four more years."

I guess one observation is that I disagree about the "best they have to offer." In the past the Rs had good (reasonable) candidates in McCain and Romney. Paul Ryan is a decent fellow. This year they had a big field, but for some reason positions such as banning Muslims, killing their families, the Mexican judge comments, etc resonated for the Republican voters. I blame the voters for that, and it is quite bothersome to me that that element is so strong in the U.S. Now Trump is fanning this element by saying things like the election will be rigged.

You might argue that Hillary was the best the Ds had to offer as a winnable candidate. She's been working towards that goal for a long time and I think everyone else didn't think it was worth challenging her, her stink notwithstanding. Also, in this environment of divisiveness it is hard to believe a D would want the job. (Ironically, this is somehow blamed on Obama when the Hannity's of the media are constantly spewing the most divisive language possible.) In terms of running the government she has a lot of experience. With her you can argue policies, but at least she isn't inciting violence, she is pragmatic, and she understands government politics. The Hannity clowns have been working on generating discontent with her for a decade since they knew she wanted the presidency. The Rs have been trying to pin something on her for 20+ years and they have not done anything but embarrass themselves in the mind of all but the most ardent R voters. Still, she has a stink so they've been successful.

It is telling that the most popular radio shows are dominated by conservative personalities of very dubious informative value: Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Beck. The left has MSNBC, but it has a relatively small following. You can argue that NPR's Morning Edition (3rd place) is left leaning, but I've never, not once, tuned in and heard programs infused with phrases like "worst president ever" or "socialist dictator" and then having audience members call in saying the most hate filled crap while the host remains silent. One congressman tried to call Limbaugh an entertainer and suffered backlash. WTF is wrong with those people? Every time an R tries to be reasonable (Boehner) he's vilified by these clowns, not to mention big money trying to steal their primary election. With that kind of conservative voter "informational system" no wonder the Rs wound up with a guy who isn't bothered being called a xenophobe because he is confident that his voters don't know what that means.

So at least the Rs had decent candidates step up to the plate, but the Republican "best voters" chose Trump. And they screwed up the chance to beat Obama twice. I can't blame the R party for that.

 

[2ski]

Look, if people want an anti-establishment person, then go for it. (you could argue Bernie was, but did you vote for Bernie?) But not Trump. He's rude and obnoxious. A bully. For those of you from MT that are Trump fans, do you remember "Brian the Bully"? Were you fans of his or is it just okay because Trump is running on the R ticket?

 

[2ski]

I guess one observation is that I disagree about the "best they have to offer." In the past the Rs had good (reasonable) candidates in McCain and Romney. Paul Ryan is a decent fellow. This year they had a big field, but for some reason positions such as banning Muslims, killing their families, the Mexican judge comments, etc resonated for the Republican voters. I blame the voters for that, and it is quite bothersome to me that that element is so strong in the U.S. Now Trump is fanning this element by saying things like the election will be rigged.

You might argue that Hillary was the best the Ds had to offer as a winnable candidate. She's been working towards that goal for a long time and I think everyone else didn't think it was worth challenging her, her stink notwithstanding. Also, in this environment of divisiveness it is hard to believe a D would want the job. (Ironically, this is somehow blamed on Obama when the Hannity's of the media are constantly spewing the most divisive language possible.) In terms of running the government she has a lot of experience. With her you can argue policies, but at least she isn't inciting violence, she is pragmatic, and she understands government politics. The Hannity clowns have been working on generating discontent with her for a decade since they knew she wanted the presidency. The Rs have been trying to pin something on her for 20+ years and they have not done anything but embarrass themselves in the mind of all but the most ardent R voters. Still, she has a stink so they've been successful.

It is telling that the most popular radio shows are dominated by conservative personalities of very dubious informative value: Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Beck. The left has MSNBC, but it has a relatively small following. You can argue that NPR's Morning Edition (3rd place) is left leaning, but I've never, not once, tuned in and heard programs infused with phrases like "worst president ever" or "socialist dictator" and then having audience members call in saying the most hate filled crap while the host remains silent. One congressman tried to call Limbaugh an entertainer and suffered backlash. WTF is wrong with those people? Every time an R tries to be reasonable (Boehner) he's vilified by these clowns, not to mention big money trying to steal their primary election. With that kind of conservative voter "informational system" no wonder the Rs wound up with a guy who isn't bothered being called a xenophobe because he is confident that his voters don't know what that means.

So at least the Rs had decent candidates step up to the plate, but the Republican "best voters" chose Trump. And they screwed up the chance to beat Obama twice. I can't blame the R party for that.

So much right in this post. Well said. I would've taken McCain a thousand times over. He messed up with his VP choice. I would've voted Jeb for this election.

 

[Southwind]

Make your case all you want the but gross incompetence, criminal activity, untrustworthy, treasonous, corruption record of Hillary Clinton will have me voting against her.

 

[James Riley]

Look, if people want an anti-establishment person, then go for it. (you could argue Bernie was, but did you vote for Bernie?) But not Trump. He's rude and obnoxious. A bully. For those of you from MT that are Trump fans, do you remember "Brian the Bully"? Were you fans of his or is it just okay because Trump is running on the R ticket?

I would have voted for Bernie, but he sold out. I'm voting for Stein. As far as being a bully, I really think Trump's target is the press and any given press person who happens to be in his face. I don't think he's xenophobic or racist or sexist. He just knows how to push the buttons of emoters who measure their self-worth (and the worth of others) by how much they can pretend to care.

Now, one might think that expertise in pushing buttons is not a quality we are looking for in a President. However, there are some buttons that need to be pushed and he's the only one with the sack to do it. God knows, John Stewart is gone, so is Colbert, Wilmore is caput and Noah doesn't have it. Doug Stanhope is good but he doesn't have a national stage. Who's gonna make fun of these bleeding hearts who's only contribution to society is to wail and moan and gnash their teeth and cry and bleed and then "ask the tough questions" (even though they are really just fishing for ratings and a gotcha moment)?

The worst possible outcome of this whole mess is if the media gets to walk away from it in the end, patting themselves on the back in a self-congratulatory love fest, smugly knowing they took down "the evil one" and saved what they perceive to be the stupid Americans from themselves. Then they will really start flexing their muscle for their owners. We don't want to encourage such behavior. They really aren't that good and they shouldn't be allowed to reward themselves for their despicable behavior. We need a return to true investigative journalism.

 

[MTGomer]

Look, if people want an anti-establishment person, then go for it. (you could argue Bernie was, but did you vote for Bernie?)

Yes.

 

[Washington Hunter]

 

[James Riley]

View attachment 60605

If true, I'm all about that. SOB should run for President on the Bull Moose Ticket.

 

[tjones]

View attachment 60605

Is he running?

 

[katqanna]

Many years ago, back when I lived in Texas, seeing the corruption of politics first hand, I stopped voting altogether. It was over 10 years that I didn't vote. That changed after I moved to Montana, got involved in conservation here, trying to protect Montana from becoming privatized Texas. There was no way I could help to conserve if I didn't get involved with the politics at the community, state and commission levels. I didn't feel that I had a choice. My father didn't raise me to be a half assed kind of person, so I had to keep on top of legislation, and try to communicate with the legislators.

And while many of us hate the political options presented to us through the two national parties now, I think it goes back to basic psychology. I grew up hearing that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A wee bit ago I read an author that spoke about the fallacy of this premise, that power simply revealed the basic personality, gave wings to it, so to speak. It is less often that you will find people who will sacrifice their private life, their lifestyle, to the intense public scrutiny of the higher political figures. Also, some of the better leaders do not crave or desire power, have no need to dictate or boss others around. They also don't crave massive accumulation of funds. I am reminded of George Washington adamantly not wanting to be the first president. Alexander Hamilton wrote to him, "every public and personal consideration will demand from you an acquiescence in what will certainly be the unanimous wish of your country." Washington replied, "delicate subject with which you conclude your letter, I can say nothing, because the event alluded to may never happen; and because, in case it should occur, it would be a point of prudence to defer forming one’s ultimate and irrevocable decisions . . . it is my great and sole desire to live and die, in peace and retirement on my own farm."

I feel the majority of the responsible people who would be qualified and would best serve our county, simply don't offer themselves on the political chopping block, more so in this modern era of the media, than possibly in Washington's day. Had our media been involved in Washington's day, he might have pulled a Texan, "Not only NO, but, Hail NO!"

Unfortunately, the major personality type that gravitates towards politics tends towards the superiority; exploitative; domineering; anti-authoritarian, yet they want to be the authority, and unethical. Factor in that you have to sell/market a candidate, make them stand out, be able to sell them to primarily lazy voters who don't take the time on issues, but generally make decisions on appearance and personality, charisma, rather than ethics and administrative abilities, then you have the recipe for our defunct electoral two party system.

Until we change the foundation of the limited two party "us against them" exclusion, I don't think we will mature or grow as a country, as a people. There are more views than just black or white, good or bad, right or wrong, but a two party system feeds and flourishes on that short sighted perspective.

I feel we need a more representative democracy that includes other parties, not necessarily based on geography, but ideology, similar to Britain's House of Commons with about 12 different parties. Not that Britain doesn't have their own issues, but we should have more diverse representation. That would create more options for a responsible person who cared to get involved with government, which would then provide the public with a better pool of candidates to vote for.

 

[bobbydean]

I would prefer a 3 party system. Last viable 3rd party presidential candidates were Ross Perot or way back in my time Ralph Nader. Do not give me Gary Johnson.

If a 3rd party were to organize, it should be now, not 2 years before the election.

A 3rd party vote now, it a waste.

 

[James Riley]

Who knew? Read this S: http://www.progressivebullmoose.party/

 

[Washington Hunter]

Of course it's real, Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump are hard core hunters. Here's another one:

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/posts/1279648182059940:0

 

[tjones]

Well, it is on FB,,,,,,,

I thought only papa Trump was running.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Well, it is on FB,,,,,,,

I thought only papa Trump was running.

Trump listens to and respects his son's opinions, and this is why I have no worries of Trump as president supporting the privatization of our public lands.

 

[RobG]

Donald Trump, following weeks of gnawing agitation over his advisers’ attempts to temper his style, moved late Tuesday to overhaul his struggling campaign by rebuffing those efforts and elevating two longtime associates who have encouraged his combative populism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...8/17/trump-reshuffles-staff-in-his-own-image/

Top that with an advisor who helped the Ukraine rigged elections and another who was just ousted from Fox for sexual harassment... I have to wonder if he wants to throw the race to get even with the Rs for not taking him seriously in the past. Yeah, the extreme wins primaries, but I figured he'd up his class for the general and possibly beat Hillary, but he just brings his game even lower. I watch the news of him like I watched the news of Katrina, the updates to the disaster being painfully slow, but always forthcoming and showing the problem to be worse than originally thought.

 

[katqanna]

This was just posted on my science feed, Scientific American wrote AGAINST a political candidate.

Donald Trump’s Lack of Respect for Science Is Alarming

Donald Trump also has shown an authoritarian tendency to base policy arguments on questionable assertions of fact and a cult of personality.

Americans have long prided themselves on their ability to see the world for what it is, as opposed to what someone says it is or what most people happen to believe. In one of the most powerful lines in American literature, Huck Finn says: “It warn't so. I tried it.” A respect for evidence is not just a part of the national character. It goes to the heart of the country's particular brand of democratic government. When the founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, scientist and inventor, wrote arguably the most important line in the Declaration of Independence—“We hold these truths to be self-evident”—they were asserting the fledgling nation's grounding in the primacy of reason based on evidence.

Scientific American is not in the business of endorsing political candidates. But we do take a stand for science—the most reliable path to objective knowledge the world has seen—and the Enlightenment values that gave rise to it. For more than 170 years we have documented, for better and for worse, the rise of science and technology and their impact on the nation and the world. We have strived to assert in our reporting, writing and editing the principle that decision making in the sphere of public policy should accept the conclusions that evidence, gathered in the spirit and with the methods of science, tells us to be true...

The current presidential race, however, is something special. It takes antiscience to previously unexplored terrain. When the major Republican candidate for president has tweeted that global warming is a Chinese plot, threatens to dismantle a climate agreement 20 years in the making and to eliminate an agency that enforces clean air and water regulations, and speaks passionately about a link between vaccines and autism that was utterly discredited years ago, we can only hope that there is nowhere to go but up.

 

[Washington Hunter]

It's not just Donald Trump's view of scientific issues, that's the Republican party's views. Who knows, Trump may not even believe what he says about the climate change issue and other things, but he has to say those things or he couldn't have been the Republican nominee. And I don't care. We don't need a president who is a scientist. We need a president who will keep our country safe and improve our economy.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Who knows, Trump may not even believe what he says about the climate change issue and other things, but he has to say those things or he couldn't have been the Republican nominee. And I don't care.

Of the other 16 Republican candidates, who would have stood up to Hillary's corruption and called her out for her lies? Nobody but Trump.

So lying is okay for Trump but not so for Clinton?

 

[Washington Hunter]

So lying is okay for Trump but not so for Clinton?

I don't care what any presidential candidate says about global warming. It's a non-issue. I want a safe country and a strong economy. That's what we'll get with Trump. Clinton has lied about many issues that affect national security. She lies about everything. Trump is honest, Hillary is not. Hillary hates guns and hunting. Trump's sons are hunters. Who are you voting for?