I did not take your comments about Trump's real estate skills as admiration. I commented upon your previous statements about Trump's positions on issues. If Trump is going to force change, and it is change that is needed and will ultimately be proven to be positive change, I do not see how that would constitute a train wreck. Perhaps you are using that term to mean something other than its usual meaning?
From my point of view, Trump has not demonstrated a firm grasp of the primary issues. My biggest concern, however, is his oft-stated philosophy of retaliating for any attack or perceived attack on him. He believes in responding ten-fold. Perhaps that is necessary in the real estate development business, but it seems to be an integral component of his personality, one I do not believe he is able to shed in different contexts. That does not bode well for the President in a time of global turmoil. Some might like the sound of it, but the reality is that America is no longer in a position to dictate terms to the rest of the world. Trump is campaigning on a harkening back to an era when America could do so. I have no reason to believe, based on his constant tough-guy talk, that Trump can be trusted to navigate the complicated foreign policy issues. His impulse is to batter an opponent. Again, that does not bode well.
I guess I am. An unpleasant overdue change that will strike at the heart of the entrenched political elite who have everything to lose and deservedly so imo.
Bernie on the other hand will call the liberal establishment's bluff on social issues where they always promise changes but never deliver or meet them out incrementally, because if they did them full tilt immediately, they would back fire economically in a hurry when the actual costs were learned. Instead they blame their intentional slowness of the delivery on the obstructionist conservatives to hide the weaknesses in their plans. He will bring home these radical policies that sound good in speeches but don't work on paper and run them right through using the Bully Pulpit. You know what is said about socialism, eh ? Socialism works great until you run out of other peoples' money.
I also expect Trump to use the BP effectively to his advantage as well.
As I also mentioned sometime ago, Trump knows where all the bodies are buried, metaphorically speaking. He has contributed to both sides and can inflict some hurt on those unwilling to cooperate with his agendas by threatening to reveal some inconvenient truths, or as it is also sometimes called arm twisting.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 6, 2016 - 7:35pm
kurtster wrote:
Nothing has changed. First let me address my at length post where I described the attributes required for successful real estate development and construction. It was to bring some people who may not understand the business up to speed on the basics and evidently you and some others took it as a statement of admiration while it was to me a statement of recognition and understanding of the skill set required. It was not a statement of admiration. It was a statement that I get and understand where Trump is coming from and how I reconcile his posture and rhetoric with my sense of reality.
Trump's positions that I mentioned are indeed what drives my support. Still does. I'll remind you in case you don't remember, that when Trump first announced and there was a big debate about how serious he was that lasted well past New Hampshire, and I stated that I took him seriously, immediately, that I could also support Sanders and recognized both of them as outsiders. Trump would derail the train and stop it while Sanders would put his foot on the pedal and get us to where we are headed sooner and in a purer form than the stuff that Hillary would do. Either way, we would avoid this purgatory of mediocrity and deceit we have been stuck in for some 20 years. I said that Trump is the one standing in front of the window with a brick in his hand ready to throw it through it, which he has done to a large extent in order to clinch the nom. So my desire for a trainwreck was mentioned very early on and evidently forgotten in the time past. But I don't expect anyone to pay attention to what I post in these particular threads being what they are. On the same hand, I don't disavow or run from what I post as I am basically serious and trying to be honest about what I do post in these threads.
You and others may find my thoughts inconsistent at best, but they are what they are. Yes, I am angry. Yes, I am fed up. As Islander tried to disparage my heritage, I am still proud of it and my family was here for over a hundred years before the first revolution. I think that it can endure another one if the cause is worthy. I am not afraid.
I did not take your comments about Trump's real estate skills as admiration. I commented upon your previous statements about Trump's positions on issues. If Trump is going to force change, and it is change that is needed and will ultimately be proven to be positive change, I do not see how that would constitute a train wreck. Perhaps you are using that term to mean something other than its usual meaning?
From my point of view, Trump has not demonstrated a firm grasp of the primary issues. My biggest concern, however, is his oft-stated philosophy of retaliating for any attack or perceived attack on him. He believes in responding ten-fold. Perhaps that is necessary in the real estate development business, but it seems to be an integral component of his personality, one I do not believe he is able to shed in different contexts. That does not bode well for the President in a time of global turmoil. Some might like the sound of it, but the reality is that America is no longer in a position to dictate terms to the rest of the world. Trump is campaigning on a harkening back to an era when America could do so. I have no reason to believe, based on his constant tough-guy talk, that Trump can be trusted to navigate the complicated foreign policy issues. His impulse is to batter an opponent Into submission. Again, that does not bode well.
kurtster has a point, although I too disagree with his desire to see Trump or Sanders create a train wreck in DC.
For some—maybe many—Americans, the status quo (which promotes candidates like Hillary and Jeb Bush) cannot continue. Areas outside of larger cities have seen their economic recovery lag since 2008. Manufacturing jobs declined in number a great deal due to the rise of Chinese manufacturing (which the Chinese aided with currency manipulation until a few years ago) and the Great Recession.
Furthermore, since 2000 the middle class has shrunk in size, its real income has declined markedly, its level of debt has gone up and its net worth has plummeted.
Yes, as kurtster points out, the unemployment dropped two points to 4.7%. However, that number can be misleading since the unemployment rate quoted in mainstream news article, known as the U-3, only measures the unemployment rate among workers still seeking work; it does not take into account people who have stopped looking or who have dropped out of the workforce entirely.
Another yardstick, the U-6, is described in this CNBC article:
The U-6 rate is defined as all unemployed as well as "persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the labor force." That means the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged.
The CNBC article states that many economists believe the U-6 is the real unemployment number. It currently stands at 9.7% as of May.
The economy slowed way down last month, adding only 38,000 jobs. As I understand matters, the economy needs to add around 150,000-160,000 jobs a month to sustain a real unemployment rate. That needed job number differs among economists. The economy had been adding 200k jobs/month for quite a while.
Many RPers posting here state that a President Trump would be a disaster. Others believe that Hillary is not listening to them and will not help them economically. Her election would continue a disaster that has already started for them. I think that in part is why Bernie Sanders, a fringe candidate during normal elections, has made it a real contest against the Democratic establishment's designated successor.
Buddy's earlier post, however, has a great point: the GOP has a lot to do with the slow rate of recovery from the Great Recession. Obama's economic stimulus was about the biggest he could politically get, but it was not big enough. Too much of it was in the form of tax cuts which apparently don't have as great an economic stimulus as other forms of government intervention such as construction projects.
The GOP has done goddamned little if anything since 2008 to help the average American economically.
Finally, kurtster: the Fed has backed off from raising its benchmark interest rate in part because of the low new job rate, but it feels confident that the economy is healthy and that there are signs of wage growth for some income groups. The Fed has kept interest rates at a very low level for a long time. It wants to avoid inflation as the economy keeps gaining strength. I gather that there some concerns very low rates for a long time can distort the way the economy allocates money.
Thanks for the reply. Yes I am very aware of the U-3 and U-6 numbers. The only reason that the unenjoyment rate went down was because 500,000 people quite looking for work in this last period. The number that I have heard and used for the number of new jobs needed to keep the employment rate flat and constant and equal to the rise in population is 250,000 per month. That would again be reflected in the U-6 number, not the U-3.
The Fed is in a quandary. The market jumped today only because the Fed said no rate increase right now. Its been somewhat range bound the past week or so waiting for the news. It did say it could be likely soon though, which it has been saying for a couple of years. But it waited too long and its back is against the wall with the election so close now and that it has long ago run out of bullets. The only reason the equity market is doing so well is that interest rates are near zero and in some places negative making putting money in the old savings account an instant and continuing loss. There is no other place to put money, as commodities have tanked, too. So we have another equity bubble, even bigger than when we tanked back in 2008. This new bubble is unsustainable, just by the very definition of a bubble. As soon as interest rates begin a real rise, pop goes the weasel. Just my opinion.
The same can be said of the system you want left intact by maintaining the status quo.
No, you don't know that. I can be harmed the same as anyone else. I am already being harmed. When the economy hits the fan, we all go down. But what you don't seem to get is that those at the bottom and the lower middle class already have little or nothing left to lose. They will be affected the least. Claims otherwise are fear mongering.
. Edit: the status quo tells me that unemployment is now down to 4.7% and the economy has never been better. You may believe that, but I sure do not. And then the Fed is going to use that unemployment number to justify that the economy is heating up and interest rates will be raised on everyone and everything, from mortgages to credit cards. This just isn't right and you wish to keep this bs intact ? That I don't get.
kurtster has a point, although I too disagree with his desire to see Trump or Sanders create a train wreck in DC.
For some—maybe many—Americans, the status quo (which promotes candidates like Hillary and Jeb Bush) cannot continue. Areas outside of larger cities have seen their economic recovery lag since 2008. Manufacturing jobs declined in number a great deal due to the rise of Chinese manufacturing (which the Chinese aided with currency manipulation until a few years ago) and the Great Recession.
Furthermore, since 2000 the middle class has shrunk in size, its real income has declined markedly, its level of debt has gone up and its net worth has plummeted.
Yes, as kurtster points out, the unemployment dropped two points to 4.7%. However, that number can be misleading since the unemployment rate quoted in mainstream news article, known as the U-3, only measures the unemployment rate among workers still seeking work; it does not take into account people who have stopped looking or who have dropped out of the workforce entirely.
Another yardstick, the U-6, is described in this CNBC article:
The U-6 rate is defined as all unemployed as well as "persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the labor force." That means the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged.
The CNBC article states that many economists believe the U-6 is the real unemployment number. It currently stands at 9.7% as of May.
The economy slowed way down last month, adding only 38,000 jobs. As I understand matters, the economy needs to add around 150,000-160,000 jobs a month to sustain a real unemployment rate. That needed job number differs among economists. The economy had been adding 200k jobs/month for quite a while.
Many RPers posting here state that a President Trump would be a disaster. Others believe that Hillary is not listening to them and will not help them economically. Her election would continue a disaster that has already started for them. I think that in part is why Bernie Sanders, a fringe candidate during normal elections, has made it a real contest against the Democratic establishment's designated successor.
Buddy's earlier post, however, has a great point: the GOP has a lot to do with the slow rate of recovery from the Great Recession. Obama's economic stimulus was about the biggest he could politically get, but it was not big enough. Too much of it was in the form of tax cuts which apparently don't have as great an economic stimulus as other forms of government intervention such as construction projects.
The GOP has done goddamned little if anything since 2008 to help the average American economically.
Finally, kurtster: the Fed has backed off from raising its benchmark interest rate in part because of the low new job rate, but it feels confident that the economy is healthy and that there are signs of wage growth for some income groups. The Fed has kept interest rates at a very low level for a long time. It wants to avoid inflation as the economy keeps gaining strength. I gather that there some concerns very low rates for a long time can distort the way the economy allocates money.
Just to be clear, I do not admire Trump in any way shape or form. I see him as an opportunity to change the way things are done, that is to change the SOP. We, this country, have reached the point were we are at a Mexican Standoff within the two sides of the established power structure that controls this country. Something has to give. The only two I see capable are Sanders and Trump. HRC is the status quo. If the choice is between HRC and Trump, its a slam dunk. Bernie and Trump, I'd have to think about it and see how it would unfold. Either one of those two is a train wreck in DC waiting to happen and that is what I am voting for.
I am responding to this, again, and to some of your responses today.
I believe as recently as a month or so ago, your central position was that Trump's positions on issues you cared strongly about were driving your choice of him as your candidate in the Republican primary campaign. If I recall correctly, you stated that you had "dived deep" into Trump's positions on issues, and, based on that research, you disagreed with those who were criticizing him as being a superficial candidate, albeit a loud and brash one. Foremost for you was his stance on immigration. You even had a theory as to what Trump means when he says he is going to make Mexico pay for the wall he is promising to build.
Now, though, it appears your position is that Trump will bring a needed train wreck. You seem to be disavowing what you stated before about Trump being a viable candidate for President. What changed your mind?
Nothing has changed. First let me address my at length post where I described the attributes required for successful real estate development and construction. It was to bring some people who may not understand the business up to speed on the basics and evidently you and some others took it as a statement of admiration while it was to me a statement of recognition and understanding of the skill set required. It was not a statement of admiration. It was a statement that I get and understand where Trump is coming from and how I reconcile his posture and rhetoric with my sense of reality.
Trump's positions that I mentioned are indeed what drives my support. Still does. I'll remind you in case you don't remember, that when Trump first announced and there was a big debate about how serious he was that lasted well past New Hampshire, and I stated that I took him seriously, immediately, that I could also support Sanders and recognized both of them as outsiders. Trump would derail the train and stop it while Sanders would put his foot on the pedal and get us to where we are headed sooner and in a purer form than the stuff that Hillary would do. Either way, we would avoid this purgatory of mediocrity and deceit we have been stuck in for some 20 years. I said that Trump is the one standing in front of the window with a brick in his hand ready to throw it through it, which he has done to a large extent in order to clinch the nom. So my desire for a trainwreck was mentioned very early on and evidently forgotten in the time past. But I don't expect anyone to pay attention to what I post in these particular threads being what they are. On the same hand, I don't disavow or run from what I post as I am basically serious and trying to be honest about what I do post in these threads.
You and others may find my thoughts inconsistent at best, but they are what they are. Yes, I am angry. Yes, I am fed up. As Islander tried to disparage my heritage, I am still proud of it and my family was here for over a hundred years before the first revolution. I think that it can endure another one if the cause is worthy. I am not afraid.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 6, 2016 - 1:04pm
kurtster wrote:
Yeah, I have problem with number 1, too. Its really annoying. A simple link with the headline as the click to is fine, but all the other bombast is just plain worthless. Rubbing somebody's nose in bs is self defeating.
Just to be clear, I do not admire Trump in any way shape or form. I see him as an opportunity to change the way things are done, that is to change the SOP. We, this country, have reached the point were we are at a Mexican Standoff within the two sides of the established power structure that controls this country. Something has to give. The only two I see capable are Sanders and Trump. HRC is the status quo. If the choice is between HRC and Trump, its a slam dunk. Bernie and Trump, I'd have to think about it and see how it would unfold. Either one of those two is a train wreck in DC waiting to happen and that is what I am voting for.
I am responding to this, again, and to some of your responses today.
I believe as recently as a month or so ago, your central position was that Trump's positions on issues you cared strongly about were driving your choice of him as your candidate in the Republican primary campaign. If I recall correctly, you stated that you had "dived deep" into Trump's positions on issues, and, based on that research, you disagreed with those who were criticizing him as being a superficial candidate, albeit a loud and brash one. Foremost for you was his stance on immigration. You even had a theory as to what Trump means when he says he is going to make Mexico pay for the wall he is promising to build.
Now, though, it appears your position is that Trump will bring a needed train wreck. You seem to be disavowing what you stated before about Trump being a viable candidate for President. What changed your mind?
The same can be said of the system you want left intact by maintaining the status quo.
No, you don't know that. I can be harmed the same as anyone else. I am already being harmed. When the economy hits the fan, we all go down. But what you don't seem to get is that those at the bottom and the lower middle class already have little or nothing left to lose. They will be affected the least. Claims otherwise are fear mongering.
. Edit: the status quo tells me that unemployment is now down to 4.7% and the economy has never been better. You may believe that, but I sure do not. And then the Fed is going to use that unemployment number to justify that the economy is heating up and interest rates will be raised on everyone and everything, from mortgages to credit cards. This just isn't right and you wish to keep this bs intact ? That I don't get.
Those that have little left to lose can lose that little. Then they have nothing. We are all hurt when the economy tanks, but those that actually bounce at the bottom are hurt the worst.
We talked about the economy when Obama was first re-elected. You said we were poised for a disaster, I said I knew a lot of people that were tired of sitting on their funds and were making plans to spend and earn. I saw a lot of growth in the last four years and it's reflected in the low unemployment numbers. I now see a lot of people getting ready to pull back. They don't like what they see with either candidate and they really don't like the crowds of people getting torches and pitchforks ready. The economy does go through cycles, and will continue to do so. The people that drive it will suffer when it drops, but they will survive. You aren't hurting them as much as you are hurting the people at the bottom, but hey if it makes you feel better...
The thing that I don't understand is that you are now making a choice for something objectively worse, just to spite others. You haven't gotten your way and you are frustrated, so your solution is to break everything. I don't see anyone legitimate thinking that Trump will be any kind of success, and the common refrain is 'tear it all down so we can start over'. But what you wanting to start over with is a situation that put many at a disadvantage so you could have your privilege. California was never 'yours', your family lineage and early seat at the table was never a guarantee. The system you wish to support was unsustainable.
By taking this 'burn it all down' step, you are going to make things worse for everyone. This may bring you some personal satisfaction, but there are a lot of people who are on the edge, and when you make it worse for everyone, you will make it really bad for them. I'm not going to like a Trump presidency should it come to be, but I'll survive. Heck, I might even find ways to prosper. But most people, including many who really can't make adjustments, will be seriously harmed. I know you don't care, but I seriously can't understand why not.
The same can be said of the system you want left intact by maintaining the status quo.
No, you don't know that. I can be harmed the same as anyone else. I am already being harmed. When the economy hits the fan, we all go down. But what you don't seem to get is that those at the bottom and the lower middle class already have little or nothing left to lose. They will be affected the least. Claims otherwise are fear mongering.
. Edit: the status quo tells me that unemployment is now down to 4.7% and the economy has never been better. You may believe that, but I sure do not. And then the Fed is going to use that unemployment number to justify that the economy is heating up and interest rates will be raised on everyone and everything, from mortgages to credit cards. This just isn't right and you wish to keep this bs intact ? That I don't get.
You may want to consider that the status quo is largely due to a GOP-controlled Congress that stated on the day they took control in 2010 that their primary mission was to block every single thing The President tried to do and have done just that. It takes cooperation and compromise to govern. The acute polarization between Democrats & Republicans and Congress & the Executive branch has created historic gridlock where no progress is made. That is what dismays me.
Yep. The GOP lost credibility with their obstreperous behavior, seemingly coming out of nowhere. If it had a legitimate focus, it wouldn't have appeared racist - which it did no matter how much they deny it.
Both Dem and GOP lost touch with a large part of their base, except for the subset that's just angry. They seem to want something that's not the norm - so the part that identifies as GOP (wanting smaller government) has been pigeonholed into voting for Trump. Is he really an agent for change to create smaller government, with less intrusion into people's lives? I don't see that.
The Democratic field has had the Hillary/Bernie choice - and the magnitude of Bernie's longevity is the sign of how disaffected those folks are.
Hillary's the only mainstream candidate, but the others are the emblem of the voters' dissatisfaction. If only the GOP had some better folks in its stable, they could've beaten Hillary. Instead, they'll have to wait - and it's all their fault.
You may want to consider that the status quo is largely due to a GOP-controlled Congress that stated on the day they took control in 2010 that their primary mission was to block every single thing The President tried to do and have done just that. It takes cooperation and compromise to govern. The acute polarization between Democrats & Republicans and Congress & the Executive branch has created historic gridlock where no progress is made. That is what dismays me.
Well, if you are happy with the way things are going then the choice is clear, vote for Hillary.
Me, I'm fed up with the status quo.
The thing that I don't understand is that you are now making a choice for something objectively worse, just to spite others. You haven't gotten your way and you are frustrated, so your solution is to break everything. I don't see anyone legitimate thinking that Trump will be any kind of success, and the common refrain is 'tear it all down so we can start over'. But what you wanting to start over with is a situation that put many at a disadvantage so you could have your privilege. California was never 'yours', your family lineage and early seat at the table was never a guarantee. The system you wish to support was unsustainable.
By taking this 'burn it all down' step, you are going to make things worse for everyone. This may bring you some personal satisfaction, but there are a lot of people who are on the edge, and when you make it worse for everyone, you will make it really bad for them. I'm not going to like a Trump presidency should it come to be, but I'll survive. Heck, I might even find ways to prosper. But most people, including many who really can't make adjustments, will be seriously harmed. I know you don't care, but I seriously can't understand why not.
Well, if you are happy with the way things are going then the choice is clear, vote for Hillary.
Me, I'm fed up with the status quo.
Of course, that's not the reason you vote for Hillary. You vote because you have to pick someone, and of your choices she's the one that makes it most likely that Trump won't stumble into a position where he can ruin the nation. It's not a vote of love for Hillary; it's a vote to prevent Trump while the GOP gets its act together - or fragments more completely and something rises from its pieces.
Yeah, I have problem with number 1, too. Its really annoying. A simple link with the headline as the click to is fine, but all the other bombast is just plain worthless. Rubbing somebody's nose in bs is self defeating.
Just to be clear, I do not admire Trump in any way shape or form. I see him as an opportunity to change the way things are done, that is to change the SOP. We, this country, have reached the point were we are at a Mexican Standoff within the two sides of the established power structure that controls this country. Something has to give. The only two I see capable are Sanders and Trump. HRC is the status quo. If the choice is between HRC and Trump, its a slam dunk. Bernie and Trump, I'd have to think about it and see how it would unfold. Either one of those two is a train wreck in DC waiting to happen and that is what I am voting for.
So now people are voting to witness train wrecks? I never knew the bar could be set so low.
Female Trump supporter ganged up upon, cornered and egged. The police just watched, having been ordered to stand down and not protect the Trump supporters emerging from the San Jose rally as it might "enrage the protesters even more".
Here the media excuse this behaviour and blame Trump.
As long as you are not white the media will give you a free past to be as racist and violent as you like.
Imagine if the roles were reversed here, white Trump supporters chasing down a black Bernie supporter. The media would be in spasms for weeks. As it happened here though they just shrugged. He's a Trump supporter and deserved to be chased down.
Mexican illegals want to conquer parts of the south, all sanctioned by the Mexican government.
The perfect example of the media giving non-whites a free pass to racism is Ali vs Hogan.
With all due respect, rotekz, you are one confused soul.
As long as you are not white the media will give you a free pass to be as racist and violent as you like.
Imagine if the roles were reversed here, white Trump supporters chasing down a black Bernie supporter. The media would be in spasms for weeks. As it happened here though they just shrugged. He's a Trump supporter and deserved to be chased down.
I’ve decided to come off the sidelines and endorse a candidate for President of the United States.
I’ll start by reminding readers that my politics don’t align with any of the candidates. My interest in the race has been limited to Trump’s extraordinary persuasion skills. But lately Hillary Clinton has moved into the persuasion game – and away from boring facts and policies – with great success. Let’s talk about that.
This past week we saw Clinton pair the idea of President Trump with nuclear disaster, racism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and whatever else makes you tremble in fear.
That is good persuasion if you can pull it off because fear is a strong motivator. It is also a sharp pivot from Clinton’s prior approach of talking about her mastery of policy details, her experience, and her gender. Trump took her so-called “woman card” and turned it into a liability. So Clinton wisely pivoted. Her new scare tactics are solid-gold persuasion. I wouldn’t be surprised if you see Clinton’s numbers versus Trump improve in June, at least temporarily, until Trump finds a counter-move.
The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States. And I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him. And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in positive terms. (I’m called an “apologist” on Twitter, or sometimes just Joseph Goebbels).
If Clinton successfully pairs Trump with Hitler in your mind – as she is doing – and loses anyway, about a quarter of the country will think it is morally justified to assassinate their own leader. I too would feel that way if an actual Hitler came to power in this country. I would join the resistance and try to take out the Hitler-like leader. You should do the same. No one wants an actual President Hitler.
So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.
As I have often said, I have no psychic powers and I don’t know which candidate would be the best president. But I do know which outcome is most likely to get me killed by my fellow citizens. So for safety reason, I’m on team Clinton.
My prediction remains that Trump will win in a landslide based on his superior persuasion skills. But don’t blame me for anything President Trump does in office because I endorse Clinton.
The rest of you are on your own. Good luck.
I think Scott Adams got lost in the pretzel-logic world of his cartoons.
1. Did Clinton explicitly "pair the idea of President Trump with...Hitler"? or the Holocaust? Not in her latest speech, as far as I can tell.
1a. She did call Trump "temperamentally unfit" to be President and pointed numerous instances of his lack of understanding about current events and policies. Most adults who've been paying attention would agree with her.
1b. Although I've just skimmed the speech, I can't see where she implied that a President Trump would be a dictator.
2. Clinton's speech wasn't a great departure from her earlier speeches, as far as I can tell. She did contrast her knowledge of and experience in foreign and domestic policy with Trump's deficiencies in those areas, and did so to great effect. She did touch on Trump being thin-skinned and rash.
3. If Clinton's numbers do go up in June, it may be in part because she gave a great speech that exposed Trump as a rambling, know-nothing, hate-filled ranter. Any rise in popularity may also be due to an apparent shortage in Trump's campaign funds for the next month or so.
Scott next loses his tenuous grasp on reality.
4. "The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States."
Wait, what?
How did Scott jump from Hillary supposedly fear-mongering about Trump all the way to an imminent race war?!?!? Does Scott seriously think that people are going to start killing each other if someone says that Trump is temperamentally unfit to be POTUS? Are non-whites supposed to start fighting with whites over Trump's thinning scalp?
5. "And I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him. And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in positive terms..."
Yes, that's absolutely right. I think America is going to be taken over by a right-wing dictator, so I'm going to jump into a race war. And a cartoonist whose cultural influence definitely peaked a while ago is on my Top Ten List of Assassination Targets justbecause he admires Trump's "persuasion skills."
5a. Who knew that Democrats were such vicious Red Guard types ready to kill at the bidding of Madame Hillary. Lynch the capitalist-lackey cartoonist!
6. "Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd."
They're never violent. All that hitting and punching and dragging of protesters during a Trump rally? All staged. They're practicing for the WWE.
7. "As I have often said, I have no psychic powers and I don’t know which candidate would be the best president."
Scott, if you think you need psychic powers to figure that out, you're sorely lacking in other mental capacities.
I will do my level best to get you into the nicest re-indoctrination/labor camps when Chairman Hill assumes power.
