Debate Now The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath

[Foxfyre]

Pride goeth before the fall. Beware of hubris

Come on. What kind of person would presume to run for the most powerful position in the world if that person wasn't possessed of a massive amount of hubris.

I am no different than anybody else that I sometimes cringe when Trump pulls one of these doozies of an easy-to-blast/criticize statements. But again, I am one of of the most fervent opponents of all forms of political correctness and how can I say that and then accuse him of whatever when he is politically incorrect?

I think those who intend to vote for him are looking past the actual words--those actual words that politicians and media and pundits have been using to destroy people for decades--to what he actually intends by those words. And in EVERY case, once he explains the intent, he wins over all but the hyper-critical hyper-partisan, self proclaimed Trump-hater types.

Once we set aside political correctness, we judge people as racist or whatever not by the words or phrases they use, but we judge people on how they treat people in their business dealings and every day lives, etc. The Donald has a darn good track record there.

 

[Shrimpbox]

You are absolutely right about the ego, point taken. You are so far ahead of most of the electorate in your analytical skills, research and intellect. If only all voters had your depth of perception I would not show so much concern. It is early but I am all in for trump as are many and he needs to feel the weight of that responsibility.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are absolutely right about the ego, point taken. You are so far ahead of most of the electorate in your analytical skills, research and intellect. If only all voters had your depth of perception I would not show so much concern. It is early but I am all in for trump as are many and he needs to feel the weight of that responsibility.

I don't know that my analytical skills are any better than anybody elses. I have been observing and analyzing this stuff for a lot of decades now and my various occupations have required seeing around the corners a bit and that may or may not give me an edge. But thank you for a very nice compliment.

I am hoping once the nomination is clinched, we will see a somewhat more disciplined Donald on the general campaign trail. I have caught enough of his 'serious' speeches to know he is an extremely disciplined and competent speaker when he is in that mode.

But he has to be careful. He got where he is by being a regular person--not being a politician. That includes speaking in half expressed thoughts and going quickly from subject to subject without fully elaborating on any topic like many of us do in a spirited conversation. He has refused to be bound to any party platform, any hard core ideology, or anybody else's rules of how politicians are expected to speak and express themselves.

And however horrifying some of his statements seem to be in this prissy, structured, restricted politically correct world the politicans and their surrogates have built around us all, he gives people hope that he isn't the all talk, no action scripted politician that has lied to us for decades now. Republicans and Democrats alike.

If he is elected, he may make a god awful president. But I think we all suspect there is a pretty special person in there somewhere and we all hope and pray that is the one that shows up on inauguration day.

 

[Shrimpbox]

There seems to be a misperception that not taking any shit and good governance are mutually exclusive. The key is to not take any shit with class. Think Ali. Good time to think of Ali. Night night.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good night Shrimp.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Yew Haw!. What a roller coaster ride we are in for. Man Fox, the Donald finally hit a home run. If I had to take blood pressure meds I would be chugging them now.. Where's the oxygen. lol. I hope he doesn't give all his supporters heart failure. What a time to be living in.

 

[Foxfyre]

He did well, but the MSM is still focused on the negatives. We'll see how it goes from here.

 

[Foxfyre]

So now here we are.

I cannot come up with a single reason to vote for Gary Johnson or Hillary Clinton.

I can list a dozen reasons that Donald Trump should not be the GOP nominee, but he is. And I can't come up with a single reason not to vote for him.

 

[Shrimpbox]

I've listened to Gary a couple of times and he is more than boring and seriously lacks even the charisma Clinton has, which is none.what is interesting though,if I heard correctly, is,that Johnson might siphon as much as 15 million votes in the general and that that would hand trump the election. If that is the case, go Gary. How,ironic would it be that Ross Perot kept bush from getting elected and put bill in office, and Johnson might keep Hilary from getting elected and put trump in office. You can't make this stuff up.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh I should announce that Hillary did clinch the Democratic nomination this past week though it was suspicious that the media chose to announce that before the polls closed on Tuesday. Did that affect the vote? Some think it did especially for Sanders. Bernie's not giving up though. Is that for real? Or is it a planned strategy to generate some interest in the Democratic convention and give Hillary more opportunity to woo voters?

 

[candycorn]

Clinton's rally sounded like a Taylor Swift concert.
Trump's "rally" was a wake with 0.00 people outside of his family willing to be in the screen with him.

The Drumpf death spiral has picked up some momentum. He'll have some good days here and there but it's over.

What is more telling is that earlier in the week, his campaign manager was trying to get the RNC to pay off the loan Drumpf made to his campaign and they didn't take care of it. As a result, Drumpf will not be doing any down-ticket fund raising for the time being.

When you take that fact it's interesting.

When you take the fact that he was in New York (who voted 6 weeks ago) instead of in one of the states he had just won...that's interesting as well. That his wake/rally was held at one of his properties is interesting too but that is what he has done in the past so lets discount that.

But more than any other single data point was that he was supposedly "prepared to spend a billion dollars" of his own money .
We're inside 6 months to go and he has spent $0.00 on ads. Ads are not running in the swing states or anywhere else.
Trump prepared to spend $1 billion on campaign "if I had to" - CNNPolitics.com


The clear evidence points to Drumpf campaign is broke.

 

[Foxfyre]

I doubt it's broke but Trump is now willing to accept the funds that normally go to the nominee as well he should.

But he hasn't needed or used the kind of money the other candidates spend so far. He hasn't followed anybody else's rules and he has been able to snag hundreds of hours of free publicity just by being Trump. He's the most interesting candidate and the coveted guest on everybody's program that we have seen ever. Even if they invite him on hoping to rip him apart.

This in December 2015 as Trump was beginning to topple the GOP opposition one by one:

. . .The question of whether Trump is a unicorn, however, is cold comfort for famed Republican media strategist Mike Murphy, who is running the pro-Bush super PAC, Right to Rise.

Murphy, who didn’t comment to The Daily Beast, has already blown $31.7 million of the nearly $33 million spent on pro-Bush television and radio ads (with the Jeb! campaign proper investing $800,000) in order to achieve a shockingly anemic fifth place in the race, with a 3.8 percent national polling average.

Trump, on the other hand, has spent a mere $216,000 on paid campaign commercials (just on radio ads, and less than 1 percent of Team Bush’s outlay), but has managed to increase his first-place lead to an average of 29.3 percent in national polls—14 points ahead of his nearest rival, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. . . .
How Donald Trump Destroyed the Political Campaign Ad​

And this is the pattern. It still takes major money to run a major campaign, but Trump hasn't needed top spend all the money the other politicians spend. His name and message is out there--love it or hate it--without him having to do much of anything but be himself.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of interest, leading up to the New Mexico primary on June 6, I didn't see a single political ad for Hillary, Bernie, or Trump on television or hear an ad for any of them on the radio. A couple of the local Democratic candidates run a couple of ads, but that was about it. It may indeed be a new era.

 

[Shrimpbox]

As an aside fox, it is deeply disheartening when you have a tragedy like Orlando and before the the bodies of the victims are even cold the usual suspects on usmb have politicized the carnage, almost without missing a beat. Both sides are guilty of this, but it sure shows the ugly underbelly of the message boards. You would think basic humanity would force a truce for a day or two out of pure respect for the dead. If they hadn't done it beforehand, many have shown their true colors during this situation and it is just plain sad. This is not a place where many grow into better people.

 

[Foxfyre]

As an aside fox, it is deeply disheartening when you have a tragedy like Orlando and before the the bodies of the victims are even cold the usual suspects on usmb have politicized the carnage, almost without missing a beat. Both sides are guilty of this, but it sure shows the ugly underbelly of the message boards. You would think basic humanity would force a truce for a day or two out of pure respect for the dead. If they hadn't done it beforehand, many have shown their true colors during this situation and it is just plain sad. This is not a place where many grow into better people.

No argument from me here.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Ok, back on point. What do you think the Donald is doing behind the scenes? Money is going to be a,problem no matter what he says and there seems to be an establishment change of strategy. Ther is now a two pronged plan, separate the presidential run from the down ticket. This is not a good strategy guys, ever hea d of divide and conquer. At some point EVERY republican candidate is going to be asked if he or she supports Donald trump and they better have a good answer. Every one is f them are going to need trump supporters to win their races. Trump is going to be in their states politicking. Time to start thinking now about how bad,Hilary is and not the Donald. Don't get caught up in democratic diversionary tactics. Donald is almost at the point where he is running as an independent.

I am stating the obvious but the critical junctures now are
The conventions
The vp picks
The debates, I firmly believe the debates will decide it all
The increasing outside probability Hilary will get indicted, the longer this goes on
The more likely the fix is in. The latest take on this, and an interesting one, is
That James Comey believes in America so much that he won't indict believing
That it would cause too much civil unrest. I don't buy it but what do I know.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Thank you both for this thread. I love it.

 

[Holos]

Ok, back on point. What do you think the Donald is doing behind the scenes? Money is going to be a,problem no matter what he says and there seems to be an establishment change of strategy. Ther is now a two pronged plan, separate the presidential run from the down ticket. This is not a good strategy guys, ever hea d of divide and conquer. At some point EVERY republican candidate is going to be asked if he or she supports Donald trump and they better have a good answer. Every one is f them are going to need trump supporters to win their races. Trump is going to be in their states politicking. Time to start thinking now about how bad,Hilary is and not the Donald. Don't get caught up in democratic diversionary tactics. Donald is almost at the point where he is running as an independent.

I am stating the obvious but the critical junctures now are
The conventions
The vp picks
The debates, I firmly believe the debates will decide it all
The increasing outside probability Hilary will get indicted, the longer this goes on
The more likely the fix is in. The latest take on this, and an interesting one, is
That James Comey believes in America so much that he won't indict believing
That it would cause too much civil unrest. I don't buy it but what do I know.

See, I do not quite comprehend why there is such controversy in politics. My position is fundamentally stated upon already established order and progress, the very same allowing me these words. Politics is a simple functional methodology for extensive civil and personal improvement. I have indeed been blasted, since I was born, with persistent dissent between citizens of all sorts of jobs and relationships, even when one would be providing to the other, to the extreme extent that politics - essential, methodological civil communication - would be deemed criminal. That, of course, is an absurd claim, that the very own facilitator of civility would also somehow be detrimental.

In any case, I yet exercised my political functions by reaching to my fellow citizens, both those who also exercised them and those who instead continued with their absurd dissent. As I became closer with the pragmatics of politics, the legislation which conducts to jurisprudence and execution, and spent time relating the apparently politically deviant behavior I saw very common to the citizens in the streets, in buildings, on the media, to the legislature, that is, textual information, I was able to make my joined perceptions of apparently repelling behaviors into stable applicable knowledge. I could have as a reference many unique citizens with their individuality maintained and also many unique regions in which these unique citizens had been, were and would be at the same time, even as they would continue their dissent by using each others work, absurd as it was.

I still do observe the unnecessary behavior of dissent occurring, although less frequently and less persistently, as if by inertia of the decades they had been pushed impulsively, retroactively. When defending fellow politically active citizens of politically dissenting citizens, to further the cause of politics and not of any segregate party or individual, I have been verbosely shamed or oppressed to express my views in promotion of political development (by verbose I mean speech without any truly, carefully calculated, contextually responsive intent, but only an emotional contraption being purged. Not every emotional spontaneous speech is verbose, so the alternating absurdity could be handled in gentility after I had already studied the law more closely).

My comprehension is that dissent contains no intellectual value, value that is respectively inherent in politics. Politics may include many values beyond the intellect, however, emotional included. Dissent still occurring, I now know it is emotional value requiring adequate investment for its purge and don't make the mistake to confuse it with any intent towards intellect, no matter how many times the intellect may be cited or referred to. My capacity to distinguish has been improved upon studying and associating the law with civil behavior, even as the latter may have persisted to defy the stated law upon its own constantly regulating adjustments.

After all that having been said, I think what any candidate does is just what I described above, continuously, which is why they call it a campaign. Political camps, urban, natural, ecological, physical, progressive in development, requiring constant improvement and efficiently enhanced conductive ease for greater political activity. Ideally, the ultimate goal should be integrating the maximum possible amount of citizens into being actively political, because if not a winner (the anarchist would be wont to argue), we still need a breather.

How could I possibly vote on any candidate, if I do not have equal access to a standard of measurement to compare their progress within their campaigns? When I search for their progresses, hoping to find an online (pliable) channel for each candidate with all their recorded speeches so I could make a proper analysis, what I get is disjointed, only brief excerpts of each with many political dissenting comments obscuring their continued progress. Each on their own will of course be perfectly active political citizens in their scheduled discourses, and I would of course entrust my vote on any of them as they have recognized and applied the communicative mechanics of politics properly, in their own names, styles and chosen topics. And they would still be perfectly active political citizens if their names, styles and chosen topics were given by another, direct opponent or some agent behind the scenes. If they were all debating together, also they would be perfectly active political citizens. However, even knowing they are traveling from state to state, either broadcasting or not, but surely progressing in their campaign, I am still left with little to no access to any of their rallies. They must be exercising their political faculties every week, but for whatever reason, I am neither personally nor generally given a weekly notice of their own words. How could I ever choose for only one with these circumstances? I wouldn't be able. Even if I had access to 99% of them in their political developing campaigns, but 1% of candidates did not relay their progress back to me, or to a channel that was of my access, I could not make a decision based on 99%, since myself as a politically active citizen is as capable as any to alone ensure 100% responsiveness when required.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok, back on point. What do you think the Donald is doing behind the scenes? Money is going to be a,problem no matter what he says and there seems to be an establishment change of strategy. Ther is now a two pronged plan, separate the presidential run from the down ticket. This is not a good strategy guys, ever hea d of divide and conquer. At some point EVERY republican candidate is going to be asked if he or she supports Donald trump and they better have a good answer. Every one is f them are going to need trump supporters to win their races. Trump is going to be in their states politicking. Time to start thinking now about how bad,Hilary is and not the Donald. Don't get caught up in democratic diversionary tactics. Donald is almost at the point where he is running as an independent.

I am stating the obvious but the critical junctures now are
The conventions
The vp picks
The debates, I firmly believe the debates will decide it all
The increasing outside probability Hilary will get indicted, the longer this goes on
The more likely the fix is in. The latest take on this, and an interesting one, is
That James Comey believes in America so much that he won't indict believing
That it would cause too much civil unrest. I don't buy it but what do I know.

See, I do not quite comprehend why there is such controversy in politics. My position is fundamentally stated upon already established order and progress, the very same allowing me these words. Politics is a simple functional methodology for extensive civil and personal improvement. I have indeed been blasted, since I was born, with persistent dissent between citizens of all sorts of jobs and relationships, even when one would be providing to the other, to the extreme extent that politics - essential, methodological civil communication - would be deemed criminal. That, of course, is an absurd claim, that the very own facilitator of civility would also somehow be detrimental.

In any case, I yet exercised my political functions by reaching to my fellow citizens, both those who also exercised them and those who instead continued with their absurd dissent. As I became closer with the pragmatics of politics, the legislation which conducts to jurisprudence and execution, and spent time relating the apparently politically deviant behavior I saw very common to the citizens in the streets, in buildings, on the media, to the legislature, that is, textual information, I was able to make my joined perceptions of apparently repelling behaviors into stable applicable knowledge. I could have as a reference many unique citizens with their individuality maintained and also many unique regions in which these unique citizens had been, were and would be at the same time, even as they would continue their dissent by using each others work, absurd as it was.

I still do observe the unnecessary behavior of dissent occurring, although less frequently and less persistently, as if by inertia of the decades they had been pushed impulsively, retroactively. When defending fellow politically active citizens of politically dissenting citizens, to further the cause of politics and not of any segregate party or individual, I have been verbosely shamed or oppressed to express my views in promotion of political development (by verbose I mean speech without any truly, carefully calculated, contextually responsive intent, but only an emotional contraption being purged. Not every emotional spontaneous speech is verbose, so the alternating absurdity could be handled in gentility after I had already studied the law more closely).

My comprehension is that dissent contains no intellectual value, value that is respectively inherent in politics. Politics may include many values beyond the intellect, however, emotional included. Dissent still occurring, I now know it is emotional value requiring adequate investment for its purge and don't make the mistake to confuse it with any intent towards intellect, no matter how many times the intellect may be cited or referred to. My capacity to distinguish has been improved upon studying and associating the law with civil behavior, even as the latter may have persisted to defy the stated law upon its own constantly regulating adjustments.

After all that having been said, I think what any candidate does is just what I described above, continuously, which is why they call it a campaign. Political camps, urban, natural, ecological, physical, progressive in development, requiring constant improvement and efficiently enhanced conductive ease for greater political activity. Ideally, the ultimate goal should be integrating the maximum possible amount of citizens into being actively political, because if not a winner (the anarchist would be wont to argue), we still need a breather.

How could I possibly vote on any candidate, if I do not have equal access to a standard of measurement to compare their progress within their campaigns? When I search for their progresses, hoping to find an online (pliable) channel for each candidate with all their recorded speeches so I could make a proper analysis, what I get is disjointed, only brief excerpts of each with many political dissenting comments obscuring their continued progress. Each on their own will of course be perfectly active political citizens in their scheduled discourses, and I would of course entrust my vote on any of them as they have recognized and applied the communicative mechanics of politics properly, in their own names, styles and chosen topics. And they would still be perfectly active political citizens if their names, styles and chosen topics were given by another, direct opponent or some agent behind the scenes. If they were all debating together, also they would be perfectly active political citizens. However, even knowing they are traveling from state to state, either broadcasting or not, but surely progressing in their campaign, I am still left with little to no access to any of their rallies. They must be exercising their political faculties every week, but for whatever reason, I am neither personally nor generally given a weekly notice of their own words. How could I ever choose for only one with these circumstances? I wouldn't be able. Even if I had access to 99% of them in their political developing campaigns, but 1% of candidates did not relay their progress back to me, or to a channel that was of my access, I could not make a decision based on 99%, since myself as a politically active citizen is as capable as any to alone ensure 100% responsiveness when required.

I didn't read all that word for word Holos, but the gist of your post that I think I got is that you are frustrated that there is no source providing all the words and commentary on any candidate. Instead we are forced to search through multiple websites and sources to find bits of information here and there, much of it contradictory, or slanted with intention to generate a specific response.

But since no single website would ever be able to contain the sum total of everything a person is, says, or does, we are stuck with using our intellect, wisdom, ability to research, and our gut to assess which of the candidates available to us has the vision, skill set, track record, and ability to get things done that we are looking for.

 

[Holos]

Ok, back on point. What do you think the Donald is doing behind the scenes? Money is going to be a,problem no matter what he says and there seems to be an establishment change of strategy. Ther is now a two pronged plan, separate the presidential run from the down ticket. This is not a good strategy guys, ever hea d of divide and conquer. At some point EVERY republican candidate is going to be asked if he or she supports Donald trump and they better have a good answer. Every one is f them are going to need trump supporters to win their races. Trump is going to be in their states politicking. Time to start thinking now about how bad,Hilary is and not the Donald. Don't get caught up in democratic diversionary tactics. Donald is almost at the point where he is running as an independent.

I am stating the obvious but the critical junctures now are
The conventions
The vp picks
The debates, I firmly believe the debates will decide it all
The increasing outside probability Hilary will get indicted, the longer this goes on
The more likely the fix is in. The latest take on this, and an interesting one, is
That James Comey believes in America so much that he won't indict believing
That it would cause too much civil unrest. I don't buy it but what do I know.

See, I do not quite comprehend why there is such controversy in politics. My position is fundamentally stated upon already established order and progress, the very same allowing me these words. Politics is a simple functional methodology for extensive civil and personal improvement. I have indeed been blasted, since I was born, with persistent dissent between citizens of all sorts of jobs and relationships, even when one would be providing to the other, to the extreme extent that politics - essential, methodological civil communication - would be deemed criminal. That, of course, is an absurd claim, that the very own facilitator of civility would also somehow be detrimental.

In any case, I yet exercised my political functions by reaching to my fellow citizens, both those who also exercised them and those who instead continued with their absurd dissent. As I became closer with the pragmatics of politics, the legislation which conducts to jurisprudence and execution, and spent time relating the apparently politically deviant behavior I saw very common to the citizens in the streets, in buildings, on the media, to the legislature, that is, textual information, I was able to make my joined perceptions of apparently repelling behaviors into stable applicable knowledge. I could have as a reference many unique citizens with their individuality maintained and also many unique regions in which these unique citizens had been, were and would be at the same time, even as they would continue their dissent by using each others work, absurd as it was.

I still do observe the unnecessary behavior of dissent occurring, although less frequently and less persistently, as if by inertia of the decades they had been pushed impulsively, retroactively. When defending fellow politically active citizens of politically dissenting citizens, to further the cause of politics and not of any segregate party or individual, I have been verbosely shamed or oppressed to express my views in promotion of political development (by verbose I mean speech without any truly, carefully calculated, contextually responsive intent, but only an emotional contraption being purged. Not every emotional spontaneous speech is verbose, so the alternating absurdity could be handled in gentility after I had already studied the law more closely).

My comprehension is that dissent contains no intellectual value, value that is respectively inherent in politics. Politics may include many values beyond the intellect, however, emotional included. Dissent still occurring, I now know it is emotional value requiring adequate investment for its purge and don't make the mistake to confuse it with any intent towards intellect, no matter how many times the intellect may be cited or referred to. My capacity to distinguish has been improved upon studying and associating the law with civil behavior, even as the latter may have persisted to defy the stated law upon its own constantly regulating adjustments.

After all that having been said, I think what any candidate does is just what I described above, continuously, which is why they call it a campaign. Political camps, urban, natural, ecological, physical, progressive in development, requiring constant improvement and efficiently enhanced conductive ease for greater political activity. Ideally, the ultimate goal should be integrating the maximum possible amount of citizens into being actively political, because if not a winner (the anarchist would be wont to argue), we still need a breather.

How could I possibly vote on any candidate, if I do not have equal access to a standard of measurement to compare their progress within their campaigns? When I search for their progresses, hoping to find an online (pliable) channel for each candidate with all their recorded speeches so I could make a proper analysis, what I get is disjointed, only brief excerpts of each with many political dissenting comments obscuring their continued progress. Each on their own will of course be perfectly active political citizens in their scheduled discourses, and I would of course entrust my vote on any of them as they have recognized and applied the communicative mechanics of politics properly, in their own names, styles and chosen topics. And they would still be perfectly active political citizens if their names, styles and chosen topics were given by another, direct opponent or some agent behind the scenes. If they were all debating together, also they would be perfectly active political citizens. However, even knowing they are traveling from state to state, either broadcasting or not, but surely progressing in their campaign, I am still left with little to no access to any of their rallies. They must be exercising their political faculties every week, but for whatever reason, I am neither personally nor generally given a weekly notice of their own words. How could I ever choose for only one with these circumstances? I wouldn't be able. Even if I had access to 99% of them in their political developing campaigns, but 1% of candidates did not relay their progress back to me, or to a channel that was of my access, I could not make a decision based on 99%, since myself as a politically active citizen is as capable as any to alone ensure 100% responsiveness when required.

I didn't read all that word for word Holos, but the gist of your post that I think I got is that you are frustrated that there is no source providing all the words and commentary on any candidate. Instead we are forced to search through multiple websites and sources to find bits of information here and there, much of it contradictory, or slanted with intention to generate a specific response.

But since no single website would ever be able to contain the sum total of everything a person is, says, or does, we are stuck with using our intellect, wisdom, ability to research, and our gut to assess which of the candidates available to us has the vision, skill set, track record, and ability to get things done that we are looking for.

Yes, thank you for summarizing.

Ideally, however, I have no need of commentaries. Only the original source (recorded or registered whatever way) is relevant in the case for general elections.

I also disagree that a single website could not contain what is needed to make an informed, educated decision. Even if a single website would serve only as a compilation, still, multiple sites could serve to ease each candidate's original relays.

Again, without being able to find and be assured of what every single candidate is doing they will not be able to do what we are looking for to get done, even if our preferences are reflected on one or another, not through an intermediary electorate, but instead we then have to rely on ourselves.