The General Election

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Yet another example off people flying off the cuff every time they hear something outside the usual realm of politics when it comes to Trump and/or trying to twist the words from the campaign. What Paul Manafort means is that he is very quick on his feet and is able to analyze things quickly and even very well. Even some of his harshest contractors agree that he is very strong at diagnosing problems, but his knowledge of issues needs to improve in order to properly solve the problem. That I'd agree with as well. But he will get there.

 

People need to get used to the fact that Trump is not a politician. And that's a good thing.

Soooo...in post #881 you said:

 

I will say this, Trump has a few key issues in his platform that he's very firm and passionate about, but there are a lot of surrounding issues that he is not extremely knowledgeable at this point in time. I believe he's got the ability and lack of quality competition set out for him to win the general election in a landslide, but he's going to have to really dig in and learn a lot, develop stances and strategies on issues, and not waiver back and forth anymore. I think a lot of the waivering on some of the issues are because he doesn't have a strong opinion on a lot of them and therefore hasn't established his viewpoint yet.

He has a lot of work to do, and a lot of damage control as well with putting his foot in his mouth way too much. We will see what happens.

 

so....now, are you saying he really doesn't have to dig in and learn a lot because he is just so above and beyond greatness that he doesn't need to know anything? What....he just has this mystical 6th sense of being able to have an epiphany every time he needs to make a statement about world events????

Or......is this statement by his campaign chair part of your last sentence about trying to damage control?

 

 

And how do you interpret the 2 things I said as conflicting?

 

So.....

 

You said something (and I agree) that he will need to really dig in and work hard to learn about issues and formulate opinions. YEAH.....We agree.

 

However, since then, he himself has said that most experts are worthless and all advice needs to come from himself (as though he knows everything)

 

And....his campaign chair claiming that he doesn't need to learn about issues around the world to know what to do.

 

 

And, you don't see that contradictory?

[zoogs]

It's not ego. It's savvy. Because he can, and Trump's electorate could give a rip about expert criticism or mainstream consensus. They subscribe to his counter-factual programming -- and those who have rallied around him -- and they're way into it.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

Yet another example off people flying off the cuff every time they hear something outside the usual realm of politics when it comes to Trump and/or trying to twist the words from the campaign. What Paul Manafort means is that he is very quick on his feet and is able to analyze things quickly and even very well. Even some of his harshest contractors agree that he is very strong at diagnosing problems, but his knowledge of issues needs to improve in order to properly solve the problem. That I'd agree with as well. But he will get there.

 

People need to get used to the fact that Trump is not a politician. And that's a good thing.

Soooo...in post #881 you said:

 

I will say this, Trump has a few key issues in his platform that he's very firm and passionate about, but there are a lot of surrounding issues that he is not extremely knowledgeable at this point in time. I believe he's got the ability and lack of quality competition set out for him to win the general election in a landslide, but he's going to have to really dig in and learn a lot, develop stances and strategies on issues, and not waiver back and forth anymore. I think a lot of the waivering on some of the issues are because he doesn't have a strong opinion on a lot of them and therefore hasn't established his viewpoint yet.

He has a lot of work to do, and a lot of damage control as well with putting his foot in his mouth way too much. We will see what happens.

 

so....now, are you saying he really doesn't have to dig in and learn a lot because he is just so above and beyond greatness that he doesn't need to know anything? What....he just has this mystical 6th sense of being able to have an epiphany every time he needs to make a statement about world events????

Or......is this statement by his campaign chair part of your last sentence about trying to damage control?

 

 

And how do you interpret the 2 things I said as conflicting?

 

So.....

 

You said something (and I agree) that he will need to really dig in and work hard to learn about issues and formulate opinions. YEAH.....We agree.

 

However, since then, he himself has said that most experts are worthless and all advice needs to come from himself (as though he knows everything)

 

And....his campaign chair claiming that he doesn't need to learn about issues around the world to know what to do.

 

 

And, you don't see that contradictory?

 

 

It goes much deeper and much further than the way you're presenting it in your skewed version that paints a bad picture, but no, I don't disagree with any of that, and no, it's not contradictory.

[AR Husker Fan]

Hardly anybody wants to speak at Trump's convention

 

With the convention less than a month away, POLITICO contacted more than 50 prominent governors, senators and House members to gauge their interest in speaking. Only a few said they were open to it, and everyone else said they weren’t planning on it, didn’t want to or weren’t going to Cleveland at all — or simply didn’t respond.

[Danny Bateman]

It's not ego. It's savvy. Because he can, and Trump's electorate could give a rip about expert criticism or mainstream consensus. They subscribe to his counter-factual programming -- and those who have rallied around him -- and they're way into it.

 

There's definitely a populist, anti-establishment wave rising right now. But in so doing, those at the heads of the movements hate done their best to disparage and smear the establishment, and by extension, experts in lots of different fields.

 

The resulting wave of anti-intellectualism that has come along with this is the most troubling to me. I understand anger and frustration at the status quo. But when you get behind a populist figurehead and allow the anger to distort your judgment enough to toss aside facts, science, and expert opinions from those who actually know what they're talking about in lieu of your demagogue... that's a problem. A huge one. It's why the youth of the UK are going to suffer through a recession. It's scary to think about the uninformed calling the shots.

[Danny Bateman]

He's looking at bringing in various sports stars in lieu of politicians, AR. I know he's good friends with Mike Tyson. I could easily see him there. I wonder who else.

 

That quote by Manafort is just... politically tone deaf. Shark is right when he says they were trying to play up a strength. But it's silly to say THAT when everyone is already saying he doesn't have the requisite knowledge for the job.

 

It's like... today, he called Warren racist for lying about her heritage. That's just a silly trap to wade into, given lots of folks have said he's been racist during his campaign. No need to go there.

 

Or... Brexit happens and he's talking about how the falling pound is good for his golf course. Why say that when you've already been framed as a selfish, money-hungry businessman?

 

Perplexing comments from an amateur campaign. I try not to get worked up over ever dumb comment he makes... they're going to keep coming.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Again, Trump supporters continue to conflate Donal Trump "saying whatever he wants" as honesty, when it's merely "saying whatever he wants."

 

It's refreshing from an entertainment standpoint, but not from someone who seeks legitimate power.

 

Then again, why would he change now? Being vague and/or categorically wrong hasn't hurt him a whit.

 

As the Brexit fallout continues, it appears supporters were impervious to the facts. They responded to nationalistic and xenophopbic platitudes and willfully ignored arguments that leaving the EU would clearly hurt their own self-interest. As the facts catch up with them, many Brexit supporters are having profound buyers remorse. They were sold a false bill of goods, but they also weren't paying very good attention.

 

Here's hoping we can avoid that fate.

[HuskerShark]

Again, Trump supporters continue to conflate Donal Trump "saying whatever he wants" as honesty, when it's merely "saying whatever he wants."

 

It's refreshing from an entertainment standpoint, but not from someone who seeks legitimate power.

 

Then again, why would he change now? Being vague and/or categorically wrong hasn't hurt him a whit.

 

As the Brexit fallout continues, it appears supporters were impervious to the facts. They responded to nationalistic and xenophopbic platitudes and willfully ignored arguments that leaving the EU would clearly hurt their own self-interest. As the facts catch up with them, many Brexit supporters are having profound buyers remorse. They were sold a false bill of goods, but they also weren't paying very good attention.

 

Here's hoping we can avoid that fate.

I admittedly don't know a lot about Brexit so I'll mostly stay away from it other than offer this commentary: typically in large, multi-national agreements like that, all it ends up being is the larger, stronger countries like Britain, Germany, and France essentially subsidizing the smaller, weaker nations. So i can understand why Britain would want to leave.

 

Secondly, regarding your first paragraph, if people are offended by him saying that certain economic conditions help him financially, that's some weak, poor-minded bullsh*t. There's nothing wrong with him saying that.

[HuskerShark]

So are all the pundits going to fact-check Hillary and Pocahontas' Trump-bashing speech?... I watched about 15 minutes of it and couldn't stand the inaccuracies, the political theatrics with no intention or meaning, and Elizabeth Warren's shaky voice, but everything that came out of their mouths up to that point was either a lie or a distorted version of the truth.

[Landlord]

What Paul Manafort means is that he is very quick on his feet and is able to analyze things quickly and even very well.

 

 

I guess I'm not at the level of being able to keep up with Trump's ability to assess and communicate a knowledgeable position on things. Can you help explain these quotes to me?

 

 

 

 

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

 

 

 

Well, I think Lincoln succeeded for numerous reasons. He was a man who was of great intelligence, which most presidents would be. But he was a man of great intelligence, but he was also a man that did something that was a very vital thing to do at that time. Ten years before or 20 years before, what he was doing would never have even been thought possible. So he did something that was a very important thing to do, and especially at that time.

[HuskerNation1]

So are all the pundits going to fact-check Hillary and Pocahontas' Trump-bashing speech?... I watched about 15 minutes of it and couldn't stand the inaccuracies, the political theatrics with no intention or meaning, and Elizabeth Warren's shaky voice, but everything that came out of their mouths up to that point was either a lie or a distorted version of the truth.

 

Most of the media refused to fact check Hillary, Warren, or Obama. That's just how it goes when you don't subscribe to their views. Regarding Warren, she actually scares me more than Bernie Sanders. For those that think Trump is a whack job, just listen to Warren talk for an hour, and the sad part is she is dead serious in her views. While I think Warren would excite the Democratic base as a VP pick, I think she would alienate moderates and Independents, not just because of her far left-wing views, but also I honestly don't think this country is ready for a dual female ticket. I honestly think it could backfire a bit as well. There is always a gender gap where Democrats win the female vote by 10 points (give or take a few) and Republicans win the male vote by 10 points (give or take a few). I think adding Warren keeps the female advantage about the same for the Dems, but drives up the male advantage for the Republicans.

[BigRedBuster]

Gender gap could be historic.

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/26/479319725/the-trump-clinton-gender-gap-could-be-the-largest-in-more-than-60-years

[mrandyk]

So are all the pundits going to fact-check Hillary and Pocahontas' Trump-bashing speech?... I watched about 15 minutes of it and couldn't stand the inaccuracies, the political theatrics with no intention or meaning, and Elizabeth Warren's shaky voice, but everything that came out of their mouths up to that point was either a lie or a distorted version of the truth.

I've seen a few of Hillary's attacks on Trump and they are all fact based. She could fabricate every speech between now and the election and still have run a more truthful campaign than Trump.

[zoogs]

Elizabeth Warren's shaky voice

I suppose at some point you're going to bring substance into this.

[BigRedBuster]

So are all the pundits going to fact-check Hillary and Pocahontas' Trump-bashing speech?... I watched about 15 minutes of it and couldn't stand the inaccuracies, the political theatrics with no intention or meaning, and Elizabeth Warren's shaky voice, but everything that came out of their mouths up to that point was either a lie or a distorted version of the truth.

I didn't see the speech. Can you fill us in on what was lied about?