The scary part of Trump is the extent to which he most respond when someone says something about him. It’s just thin skinned … you can be thin skinned and not feel compelled to respond. It burns him up so much that he can’t contain himself … the other day after Bloomberg talked he spoke about how he wanted to respond, but his advisers said not to, and he said ok I wont … next thing I see he’s tweeting to Bloomberg.
*** THIS GUY CANNOT BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT ***
He’ll spend all day thinking about who burned him and how to respond!!!
Wish I knew. I’m finding your whole take hard to fathom. Something something Policy Unicorn something something Rainbows something. Hillary corrupt something something. Bernie lost, man.
Behind Hillary is a lot of gross stuff to be sure. But I’ll take her skeletons and think tankers and corporate puppeteers and all the rest over this anyday:
I’m just sick of being pretty much surrounded by people grinning through bites from a shit sandwich. As for voting, I’m glad I live in a state where the shit-munchers won’t be able to blame me for Trump because I didn’t vote for Clinton.
What about plans written down in black and white for a prospective President who didn’t have the power to achieve these new goals in previous positions?
Indeed. A list in black and white of “Promises Broken By Politicians of All Stripes” is much longer and a more robust predictor of the future than anything on a campaign website.
No one is saying don’t vote for Hillary. Just don’t be dumb.
And a realist says why can’t HRC fans see that they’re being sold down the proverbial river yet again? And hurting the chance of winning that they don’t even deserve in the process?
But since you won’t take it from me:
Democratic leaders seem to be preparing to run exactly as they have always run. Hillary Clinton is pivoting to the right just as other Democrats did before her because … because, well, that’s what Democrats always do. Her first big move after securing her party’s nomination was to choose Tim Kaine as her vice-presidential candidate – a man who voted for fast-tracking the Trans Pacific Partnership and a supporter of his state’s right-to-work laws. He is, as a recent headline proclaimed, “a Democrat Wall Street can like”.
Appropriately enough, Wall Street personnel are reportedly flocking to the convention in Philadelphia, eager to be reunited with the party that, for a time during the primary season, seemed to be turning away from them. Other accounts suggest that Hillary intends to reverse course on trade as soon as it’s possible to do so.
Let’s see: trade agreements, outreach to hawks, “bipartisanship”, Wall Street. All that’s missing is a “Grand Bargain” otherwise it’s the exact same game plan as last time, and the time before that, and the time before that. Democrats seem to be endlessly beguiled by the prospect of campaign of national unity, a coming-together of all the quality people and all the affluent people and all the right-thinking, credentialed, high-achieving people. The middle class is crumbling, the country is seething with anger, and Hillary Clinton wants to chair a meeting of the executive committee of the righteous.
As if Trump has ever actually risked taking a swing at someone and risking getting knocked on his ass. Look at his body language - he’s the awkward, chubby unpopular kid on the playground, trying to pretend that he’s confident. He’s a verbal bully who threatens, but at the end of the day, he hires lawyers and bodyguards.
Well sure, if they’re not impoverished residents of societies that we ourselves helped decimate. In which case, he would at least try to respect them enough as human beings to convert them to pink mist quickly.
I didn’t watch the same convention as the author of that piece. Donald Trump musing about one thing after another doesn’t make them republican policy, whereas democrat policy actually includes a lot of progressive planks (as well as continued murder of foreigners for no reason). I’m not backing Clinton. I just don’t think that’s a fair assessment.
In particular, the article goes on about trade deals, about how the Republicans have shattered the consensus and the Democrats are pretending it didn’t happen. Well, this is what Clinton said:
If you believe that we should say “no” to unfair trade deals… that we should stand up to China… that we should support our steelworkers and autoworkers and homegrown manufacturers…join us.
If someone wants to say that the “unfair” part is a weasel word she’ll later use to sign TPP, that might be true. But she isn’t pretending that the consensus wasn’t broken.
I picture a younger, circa-2010 Obama sitting bedside with Michelle, torn by the realities of his post and the decisions he’d never hoped he’d have to make. I picture him breathing in his morning cigarette more deeply than usual and following it by another one only fifteen minutes later. A month later, he finds himself pounding his Oval Office desk in isolated rage, his thoughts bouncing off the walls with no good answers.
Years go by, hairs turn grey and white. One morning he looks in the mirror and finds himself staring back at that younger self, now with a pained look that says ‘I’m sorry’. He has no words left.
I just don’t think the article is reasonable. Clinton hasn’t gone right since her primary campaign, she has gone left, she was pulled left by the Sanders crowd. The examples from the article confirm that - e.g. She’s now on free tuition when during the campaign she seemed to think it was laughably unaffordable.
For the larger issue, I don’t have to make a choice about who to vote for for American president, so it’s not that pressing for me to sort this out. I think it can be reasonably argued that Clinton is a step in the right direction right now, or (hell, maybe even and) that voting for mass murder is impossible for a person of conscience to swallow, even if the alternative is also mass murder.
And if someone votes for Trump because they think he is less likely to wage wars, then I can even see how that could be a sensible if heart-rending decision (even as I think they are dead wrong).
But yeah, if Clinton wins and in 8 years are choosing between someone who wants to reverse the suffrage from the Republicans and someone who literally has, “Fuck you, you have to vote for me” tattooed on their forehead, we’ll all know why.
