Trump on National Security

[rightleft22]

People we dislike, who's agendas differ radically from our own can still make valid points.  "Don't jump to conclusions" is not a politically biased piece of propaganda.  It's just damn good advice.

I agree however it appears to me anyway, that both sides in dialog need to start from this place, and that does not appear to be the case.

Even as I read that I find my asking myself if I’m making the same mistake. That perhaps I am overlooking something… and knowing that

It becomes so dammed difficult when engaged in dialog with a person that uses the type of rhetoric that a boy like Trump uses.   For example anytime one acknowledges the kernel of fact in a Trump statement it is used against any attempt to go deeper. 

How do you have dialog with someone that says?
I trust Trump because I don’t trust Hillary.
I don’t trust the media except the media I trust. Facts that don’t fit my narrative are not facts or relevant

The trick is to accuse the other of doing everything you’re doing, while sincerely denying you’re doing the same, more often than not because you can’t see your own shadow

There is no possible dialog and my number one reason that I think Trump is a dangerous

[D.W.]

I don't have any good suggestions for you.  Here's a bad one.  Resize the window and scroll to the side so you can't see the name of the poster.  Maybe you'll bring less baggage with you and just read what they said instead of trying to fit it into a box that's comfortable.

Reading political discussion forums is like panning for gold anyway.  Except it's normally not silt and mud that we have to wash away hoping to find something of value...   

[cherrypoptart]

That one seemed like it was probably legit to me from day one. False flags can include bombings, arson, and of course vandalism but nobody is going to dump a huge pile of that to gin up sympathy and frame their political opponents especially with something like that which doesn't do much to make anyone feel sorry for you.

[TheDeamon]

The manure one sounds funny because it's an accurate commentary, for either side.

[cherrypoptart]

And let's not forget that Hillary gave as good as she got.

Hillary bus caught illegally dumping poop in street
'Toilet paper was scattered everywhere, and there was a foul smell'
Published: 10/18/2016 at 5:17 PM

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/hillary-bus-caught-illegally-dumping-poop-in-street/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like Trump was right about massive undetected voter fraud too.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/voter-fraud-california-man-finds-dozens-ballots-stacked-outside-home.html

"Jerry Mosna was gardening outside his San Pedro, Calif., home Saturday when he noticed something odd: Two stacks of 2016 ballots on his mailbox.

The 83 ballots, each unused, were addressed to different people, all supposedly living in his elderly neighbor’s two-bedroom apartment.

“I think this is spooky,” Mosna said. “All the different names, none we recognize, all at one address.”

His wife, Madalena Mosna, noted their 89-year-old neighbor lives by herself, and, “Eighty people can’t fit in that apartment.”

They took the ballots to the Los Angeles Police Department, but were directed to the post office. They felt little comfort there would be an investigation, and called another neighbor, John Cracchiolo – who contacted the Los Angeles County Registrar's office."

[cherrypoptart]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/11/02/france-closes-4-mosques-for-promoting-radical-ideology.html

"France closes 4 mosques for promoting 'radical ideology'
Published November 02, 2016 Associated Press
Facebook Twitter   Email

PARIS –  France's interior minister has ordered the closure of four mosques that allegedly espoused a 'radical ideology,' the latest such shutdowns among dozens since the Nov. 13 Paris attacks nearly a year ago.

A state of emergency in France allows for the closing of places of worship where the preaching risks provoking hate, violence or acts of terrorism.

Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve ordered the mosques in the Paris region closed on Wednesday. A ministry statement did not name the mosques, located east, west and north of the city.

"Under cover of religion, these places held meetings that in reality were aimed at promoting a radical ideology," the statement said.

Dozens of mosques where radicalism allegedly thrived have been closed and non-citizens, including imams, expelled since the attacks that killed 130 people."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the tolerant and liberal French have had to take this draconian step that's saying something. They are trying to teach us something the easy way but some people only like to learn things the hard way.

It probably would have been much easier for France to keep the problem out in the first place with proper vetting than it will be to fix their problem now. We need to learn from their failures, and in a case like this failure typically means citizens murdered in a terrorist attack.

[AI Wessex]

It looks like Trump was right about massive undetected voter fraud too.

You keep stepping on your own message.  You call 83 ballots "massive"?  There are almost 18 million registered voters in California, so this amounts to 0.00046% of the total, and neither you nor the article has any idea who the votes would have been cast for.  So maybe it would have all been Trump votes, in which case maybe it wouldn't seem like such a big deal to you. 

The article also says that the Heritage Foundation has "verified" 430 cases of voter fraud.  They don't say over what time period or in what elections they discovered this 5x greater amount of massive fraud.  If that's in California, that's still a teeny weeny tiny number.  If it's nationwide, that's even teenier weenier tinier.  If it's over 3 election cycles it's about as teeny weeny tiny as it can possibly get. In other words, that's about as far from "massive" as you can get, but if it seems "massive" to you then it explains why you're so utterly terrified of Muslim terrorism in this country, which also occurs a teeny weeny tiny number of times.  If you were a finance officer in an 18,000,000 person company you'd probably spend all day every day looking for expense reports to reject for spending $0.05 more on a cup of coffee than they should have.

Hillary bus caught illegally dumping poop in street

Not nice, but in what bizarre way is that the same thing as a self-proclaimed Trump supporter dumping horse manure at a Democratic Party office? 

The kind of logical skills you are applying to the whole election strike me as what a person who locks himself in a car might possess.

[D.W.]

I don't know which is stranger.  That the ballots that guy found doesn't strike you as the exact type of thing that someone would create a hoax of as you were just discussing, or that AI dismisses it s probably a legit story but such a small number that it's no big deal.   

Just... a few... more... days!

Then maybe the absurd implausible nuttiness I see on TV will be on programming that isn't suppose to be "news". 

[cherrypoptart]

There was a black lady in front of me at the checkout line talking to her boyfriend and she said that she can't wait until this whole election drama is finally over.

I couldn't help but think out loud, "At least that's something we can ALL agree on."

[D.W.]

I just hope that it does actually settle down.  After this long drawn out mud-wrestling match, it's hard to imagine "normal" returning.

[Fenring]

I just hope that it does actually settle down.  After this long drawn out mud-wrestling match, it's hard to imagine "normal" returning.

This is surely the most extreme election in terms of voter polarization. Sure, many people veer automatically to the left or the right in any given election, but the level of polarization this time seems increased. For instance, I don't recall in the past hearing celebrities calling each other out publicly over whose side they're on. I've also seen multiple instances of people on my FB feed posting that anyone who would vote for Trump should unfriend them immediately. Can you imagine? I've actually not seen that same ultimatum made about anyone who would vote for Hillary, but to be fair the rhetoric against each candidate has not been symmetrical. Trump haters tend to villify the people who support him, while Hillary haters tend to villify her and not her 'supporters'.

[AI Wessex]

I couldn't help but think out loud, "At least that's something we can ALL agree on."

As a general comment I think you use your "outside voice" more than you should; people are easily frightened.

[AI Wessex]

Then maybe the absurd implausible nuttiness I see on TV will be on programming that isn't suppose to be "news".

Quite honestly, I don't expect this election to be "over" for a long, long time.  You won't have to tell your unborn kids about it; they'll be watching it on their VR implants in real-time.

[Greg Davidson]

This is surely the most extreme election in terms of voter polarization.

Have you ever before seen an election where one candidate said he would direct the Justice Department to prosecute the other? Where the chant of "lock her up" (essentially borrowed from a Ukranian political campaign) is a prominent feature of one candidate's rallies? Where one candidate has encouraged violence against protesters?

[AI Wessex]

The thing is that Hillary is *not* a polarizing figure.  How can she be both polarizing and a career politician who would extend Obama's agenda?  Trump is making it that way single-handedly with an echo chamber of hard-core nationalists, ultra-conservatives and alt-right extremists.  Their target audience is the vulnerable weak-willed soft center of the American populace whose personal frustrations and disappointments can be exacerbated into anger and outrage.  Whatever you may think of Hillary's own vulnerabilities, her campaign has been framed about issues.  They have gotten lost in the discussion because Trump has made the contest entirely about himself, that he should be President because he is the bigger bully.

They once said about the Vietnam War, When will this national nightmare end?  We're still not quite past that.  They'll be saying it about the ruins of our national political system beginning November 9, with no end in sight.

[Fenring]

The thing is that Hillary is *not* a polarizing figure.  How can she be both polarizing and a career politician who would extend Obama's agenda?

I think it would be fair to suggest that Hillary isn't intentionally making it a polarized election. That is worth something, I suppose, but then again since she's been a polarizing figure going back many years it could be argued that the DNC propping her up as "the" candidate was, in and of itself, all that was needed to make her a polarizing figure. The rest of her campaign could then rightly be seen as damage control to minimize that effect.

Putting aside for the moment her intentions, I'd say Hillary is indeed the most polarizing figure the Democrats have had running for office in a long time.

[Greg Davidson]

I'd say Hillary is indeed the most polarizing figure the Democrats have had running for office in a long time.

Characterizing someone as "polarizing" imputes responsibility and agency on them for performing actions that create a polarizing effect.  I would argue that something else is going on. Hillary Clinton started positioning for the White House as one of the most popular political figures in the US (65% in the Gallup favorability ratings in 2011).  The logical counter-strategy from the Republicans is to take actions to drive down her favorability scores (she is also a below average politician in terms of interacting with the public, particularly in large groups - not nearly as good as Obama or Reagan or Bill Clinton, probably closer to the level of John Kerry or Mitt Romney, and not necessarily on the positive side of the two of them)

And this did not take place in a vacuum - the Republicans had already created a significant capability to demonize (as demonstrated by driving very large percentages of Republicans to believe that Barack Obama was an illegitimate President, a Muslim, and even at one point 26% of Republicans reported that they felt Obama may be the antichrist).   

So maybe a more accurate alternative interpretation is that the Republicans have finely honed their polarization capability, and Clinton is merely the current recipient of their overall strategic approach.

[Fenring]

So maybe a more accurate alternative interpretation is that the Republicans have finely honed their polarization capability, and Clinton is merely the current recipient of their overall strategic approach.

I won't discount the possibility that there's a grain of truth in what you say, but if we're going to talk about balance of probabilities I would call into question the plausibility that the vast amount of people who positively hate Hillary only feel that way because they've succumbed to GOP brainwashing. Since this number includes swathes of Democrats who supported Bernie but would rather vote for Clinton than let Trump into the White House, it seems evident to me that it cannot merely be a question of propaganda.

[Greg Davidson]

I would call into question the plausibility that the vast amount of people who positively hate Hillary only feel that way because they've succumbed to GOP brainwashing. Since this number includes swathes of Democrats who supported Bernie but would rather vote for Clinton than let Trump into the White House, it seems evident to me that it cannot merely be a question of propaganda.

What are the limits of propaganda? Well, 5 years ago a very well-known Hillary Clinton had a favorability rating of 65%. Her current negative stereotype is that her whole life she has been a corrupt, corporatist, felon. Why didn't most people believe that 5 years ago?

As another telling example of the power of propaganda, it seems you believe that Hillary Clinton gets an unusual level of her support from those who don't like her but even more strongly dislike Trump. I have heard that message repeated a lot. But it turns out not to be the case. 538 looked at ABC News polling that showed that 56% of Clinton supporters were for her (rather than against her opponent) - and it turns out that except for President Obama, that's about as positive as any previous non-incumbent candidate since 1980 (including Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan). http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters-arent-just-voting-against-trump/

 

[cherrypoptart]

I'm curious about the ways that a Hillary Clinton Presidency will make America a better country. It would be nice to get some thoughts on that on record and see how they compare to the reality three or four years from now.

If I answer the same question about Trump I would say that the border would be more secure with a dramatic impact including hundreds of thousands less illegals crossing it and increased job opportunities for Americans along with wage increases at the bottom rung of the economic ladder as labor laws are enforced, Islamic terrorism would decrease along with police assassinations, the number of people out of the workforce and not even looking for a job will be reduced by millions of Americans who will find work once taxes go down and business regulations are loosened, and ISIS will be destroyed in short order in Syria as Trump aligns with the Russians with an agreement to let Assad stay in power and as ISIS falls in Syria it will be easier to crush elsewhere and the popularity of its brand will take a hit which will result in fewer terrorist attacks conducted in their name. I don't see big improvements from Trump on healthcare though I see Hillary only doubling down on Obamacare and escalating our pain.

I would note that the same exercise done for Obama would also be interesting and would seem to me to illustrate the great disappointment between the hype on the eve of his elections and the reality we are now experiencing as he is stepping out of office.

[AI Wessex]

It's hard to respond to you, Cherry.  Trump hasn't been honest about what he will do, so it's always been a matter of shadow boxing to argue against him.  In other words, he wouldn't do any of the things you mentioned, so pretending that he would have had a glorious reign in office is pointless.

For one example in more relevant news, now Trump is trashing Comey as a partisan hack and part of the ginormous Democratic Party corrupt machine.  He said the opposite 9 days ago when Comey announced that he was going to look into the new emails and lavished praise on him for his bravery and honesty.  That's a good example of how he flips what he says depending on circumstances rather than reflect any committed belief.  It amazes me that you believe a word he says.  His surrogates are no better.

One thing to keep in mind is that everything that everybody on either side of this election has said will be remembered.  I suspect the careers of dozens of people on Trump's side have been destroyed, and that Trump's own business reputation is in the gutter.  The only people who will stick by him are white nationalists, the KKK, 3%ers, and people like them.  They'll be emboldened by Trump and therefore easier to keep track of in the future.

[Fenring]

What are the limits of propaganda? Well, 5 years ago a very well-known Hillary Clinton had a favorability rating of 65%. Her current negative stereotype is that her whole life she has been a corrupt, corporatist, felon. Why didn't most people believe that 5 years ago?

May I assume your implication is that Wikileaks is working directly for the GOP?

[AI Wessex]

No, but you can assume that they have shared interests.

[D.W.]

AI, you are wrong about the people who will stick by Trump.  I know several that don't fit into your categories.  I can't explain them, but I know them.  It MAY be fair to say they are mostly against Hillary and Democrats in general, but they aren't necessarily treating Trump like bad medicine necessary to prevent an illness.

[AI Wessex]

AI, you are wrong about the people who will stick by Trump.  I know several that don't fit into your categories.  I can't explain them, but I know them.  It MAY be fair to say they are mostly against Hillary and Democrats in general, but they aren't necessarily treating Trump like bad medicine necessary to prevent an illness.

Fair enough, I was stretching to make a point.  But to continue what was on my mind, it would be fascinating to do a deep analysis of the people who actually voted for both Clinton and Trump after the election.  Cherry has pointed out what he strongly believes Trump would accomplish in his first four years.  What percentage of his voters actually believe he will build the wall he promised at the start of the campaign, since he no longer seems to talk about it.  Likewise, how many of Clinton's voters believe she will accomplish what she has campaigned on.  There are lots of other interesting questions that could be asked, as well, including as a sample:

* Do you accept the outcome of the election as legitimate?
* Did this election cycle inspire you to join an organized group to work toward the objectives promoted by your candidate?
* Given the new composition of the Senate and House, should they work cooperatively with the new President or withhold all support except for what they want?
* Should the House investigate the President for possible crimes committed before s/he was elected?
* ...

[cherrypoptart]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that a Hillary Presidency necessarily will result in a mushroom cloud but I guess that's just one more thing that separates me from Jill Stein.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/07/jill-stein-agrees-trump-hillary-clinton-presidency-nuclear-war-mushroom-cloud-waiting-happen/

“Hillary brought us Libya almost singlehandedly,” Stein explained in a Thursday Fox Business interview. She continued:

    And she has said that she will lead the charge with a no-fly zone in Syria, and that basically amounts to a declaration of war against Russia, who is there under international law, having been invited by the sitting government. Like it or not, Russia has the sanction of international law to be there. For us to go in and declare a no-fly zone means get ready for war with Russia. Both of us have 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair trigger alert. This is the most dangerous moment— according to the former president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, who, two weeks ago, said this is the most dangerous nuclear moment ever."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do agree that Russia will not back down in Syria. The problem with Obama drawing red lines all over the place like a child playing with crayons is that nobody takes the U.S. seriously anymore which will double the danger if Hillary gets in there and actually is as serious as a heart attack and won't back down either.

[AI Wessex]

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/07/jill-stein-agrees-trump-hillary-clinton-presidency-nuclear-war-mushroom-cloud-waiting-happen/

The two things wrong with that reference are highlighted.  Breitbart is an alt-right activism site and Jill Stein has proven to have a remarkably shallow understanding of both foreign policy and political practicalities.  It suggests to me that you are getting desperate when you have to reach so far out of the mainstream for an argument you want to agree with.

[cherrypoptart]

I don't determine the validity of a point that is being made based solely on the person who is making it.

Her point stands independent of her person, and it's a very good point. I won't repeat it just because it's still right there and she made it quite clearly. I seem to remember someone else on here making the same point, that basically enforcing a no-fly zone against Russia in Syria is an act of war. I wonder if Hillary will go to Congress first.

Conversely, saying that you are going to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria and then not actually doing it is also problematic. Maybe Obama will share his crayons with her so she can continue his policy of drawing red lines in the sand all over the place over there and everyone else can for the most part just ignore them except for some generous people who may decide to humor Obama and Hillary like they are spunky little children by calling their pretty little red lines "cute".

[AI Wessex]

OK, if we start with this:

Hillary brought us Libya almost singlehandedly

we can dismiss whatever else that follows.

[cherrypoptart]

Although I have to admit you do confirm another point that was made in the article. I wouldn't have to resort to fringe sources to quote Stein if the media acted as an honest broker.

"Stein agreed and said that the corporate media’s blackout of her campaign and their perpetuation “speaks volumes.” She said, “My campaign is a very inconvenient truth that there is a politics of integrity out there. … Every day, there are more revelations how both … [Trump and Clinton] are walking, talking scandal machines, and people are clamoring for something else.” She added, “The corporate media, the apologists for the Democrats and Republicans, and the political pundits are doing everything they can to intimidate people into voting for the system that’s throwing them under the bus.”

I don't think anyone can seriously deny that there has been a media blackout against Stein. The media is doing everything it can to get Hillary elected and they don't want any more liberal Democrats like Susan Sarandon getting peeled off because their conscious gets in the way.

[AI Wessex]

I don't think anyone can seriously deny that there has been a media blackout against Stein. The media is doing everything it can to get Hillary elected and they don't want any more liberal Democrats like Susan Sarandon getting peeled off because their conscious gets in the way.

You can make that case about her and every other candidate who didn't get the airtime they thought they deserved.  You can also make the case that organizations who support the candidates don't get enough airtime, like the KKK and other white nationalist groups, including the Daily Stormer, David Duke, the National Policy Institute, American Renaissance and the League of the South, among others.  They're all legitimate, so how come the mainstream media doesn't give them more attention?