Reasons I cannot vote for Trump

[enron_by_the_sea]

It is tragic (and scary) that this man was able to win the GOP nomination. It shows how bad things have become on that side of politics.

[all]

Or he really is just a Clinton plant.

[njtosd]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]It is tragic (and scary) that this man was able to win the GOP nomination. It shows how bad things have become on that side of politics.[/quote]

No – it’s worse than that. It shows that there is a relatively large, angry group of Americans who rejected the candidates presented by the party in favor of a crazy person because they do not feel represented by the GOP. God forbid that these people split off to become a separate party. The Republican Party did not support (and actively opposed) Trump just as the Democratic Party did not support (and actively opposed) Bernie Sanders. They are two sides of the same coin (although I like Bernie Sanders better). This election has proven that the main stream candidates do not represent what the people want…..

[FlyerInHi]

Here’s a good article by a Brookings scholar.
It’s clear that Trump is the creation of the Republican party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.fb13619a08fe

I fail to see the equivalence between Trump and Sanders. Trump is the retrograde past. Bernie is idealism that is always among young people.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=svelte]I still can’t figure Trump out. I don’t think he is stupid. So why exactly is he doing what he’s doing?

Theories I haven’t eliminated yet:
– He wants to throw the election to the Dems. (he’s doing a bang-up job)

– He loves the attention. (again, bang-up job)

– He has equal parts crazy to go with the intelligence. (totally plausible)

I thought maybe there was a fourth option that he saw himself as more popular than he is, but his recent statements that it’s OK if he loses lean me away from that theory.[/quote]

Trump is not smart. Smart people can spell. Smart people can string together a coherent sentence.

He probably has some animal cunning which has helped him in his business dealings (along with healthy doses of luck, inheritance, and a willingness to screw everyone else over). But I don’t think he is “smart” in the typically accepted sense.

His reason for running seems pretty clear to me: he has severe narcissistic personality disorder, and winning the presidency would be the ultimate ego high. His inability to make good decisions or stop screwing up is part of his mental illness. He literally cannot recognize what a buffoon he is, thinking instead that the problem is with everyone else, all of whom are inferior to him.

What’s a lot more surprising to me is how many people have fallen for his incredibly obvious act. It’s extremely disappointing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=njtosd]No – it’s worse than that. It shows that there is a relatively large, angry group of Americans who rejected the candidates presented by the party in favor of a crazy person because they do not feel represented by the GOP. God forbid that these people split off to become a separate party. The Republican Party did not support (and actively opposed) Trump just as the Democratic Party did not support (and actively opposed) Bernie Sanders. They are two sides of the same coin (although I like Bernie Sanders better). This election has proven that the main stream candidates do not represent what the people want…..[/quote]

The election, so far at least, proves no such thing. Trump won. Trump won because he represents exactly what the Republican party has been selling for the last 3 1/2 decades. They’ve been selling that government is the problem. That the government is broken. That the government can’t solve problems. And the solution is to get rid of the government. Now they have a candidate who is promising to do just that. That the party elite now run from him is really incidental. The only difference between Trump and at least 1/2 of the other Republican candidates that he beat is subtlety. He says what they’ve only hinted at. They have plausible deniability. He doesn’t. That’s the only difference.

And Sanders didn’t win. Clinton did. Clearly there is support within the Democratic party for significant change. But that support did not extend to the majority of those that voted.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=all]Or he really is just a Clinton plant.[/quote]

I heard that from a pretty right wing military guy. He said that the Clintons are so powerful that you don’t fvck with them. They’ll do anything to win.

I don’t really get that because, at one point, the Clintons were just young hippies. It’s not like they come from generations of wealth and power.

[ltsddd]

Trump is Faux News in 3D.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
What’s a lot more surprising to me is how many people have fallen for his incredibly obvious act. It’s extremely disappointing.[/quote]

I’m not, although I’m a bit surprised how apparently completely incompetent on many fronts he appears to be. To the point I wonder if it’s not an intentional throw.

But then again, he is, you noted and I suspect, one giant narcissist.

All that said, it really highlights how low people with stoop and how stupid and greedy they will be to be the ones that got the short end of his deals.

I’m not talking the neighbors that get bullied and sued into submission, I mean the people taking the money and getting shafted on his BKs. The politicians in bed with him to approve the development deals. etc.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=no_such_reality]To the point I wonder if it’s not an intentional throw.
[/quote]

Suspicions like this, and the “Hillary plant” thesis mentioned by someone else above, give Trump way, WAY too much credit.

Which is more plausible:

– He’s an evil genius with a cunning master plan that somehow involves convincing everyone he’s a mentally unstable halfwit

– He actually just is a mentally unstable halfwit

[svelte]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=no_such_reality]To the point I wonder if it’s not an intentional throw.
[/quote]

Suspicions like this, and the “Hillary plant” thesis mentioned by someone else above, give Trump way, WAY too much credit.

Which is more plausible:

– He’s an evil genius with a cunning master plan that somehow involves convincing everyone he’s a mentally unstable halfwit

– He actually just is a mentally unstable halfwit[/quote]

From those choices, I’m really hoping he’s a mentally unstable halfwit, because if he is cunning then we could all be in real trouble. 🙂

With everything he’s said in the last 6 months, the Clinton campaign should have ample material to obliterate him in ads this fall. But I hope he continues to say and do insanely inept things just to ensure he doesn’t get elected. My fear is that he’ll tone down his rhetoric and since people have short memories, he’ll start polling better.

I have really never seen anything like this presidential race in the years I’ve understood/watched politics. I would imagine you’d have to go way, way back in history to find anything that comes close to this. It’s fun to watch, yet spooky at the same time since this decides who sits in the most important chair in the world.

[no_such_reality]

The evil genius would be the Clinton power brokers. The PTB. Keep in mind the 2nd half of your choice is half complete. “- He actually just is a mentally unstable halfwit” and that many people supporting him are that ?gullible? ?stupid? ?angry they don’t care?

Snark aside, I think the real Trump is the Trump you’re repeatedly in the commercials where he’s mocking the reporter from earlier in the campaign.

It is an interesting discussion, the fact that Trump has succeeded not in the presidential race but at least the American wealth race, even if not to the level he pretends.

Why? Is a little bit of money that much of an advantage? Is a pugilistic nature and willingness to sue everything under the sun that effective? Does the vast majority just turn a blind eye in the pursuit of money? Is America that full of assh*les? Shits?

I’ve said before he reminds me of every half-*ssed C-level that was full of themselves I’ve ever met. But you got a read on them pretty quick and they couldn’t go more than one meeting without their colors showing.

Did people doing business with him before really not see this part of him or did they just not care?

[zk]

The NYT today referred, kind of in passing, to the Trump candidacy as the “Trump sharknado.”

That about sums it up, I think.

[njtosd]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=njtosd]No – it’s worse than that. It shows that there is a relatively large, angry group of Americans who rejected the candidates presented by the party in favor of a crazy person because they do not feel represented by the GOP. God forbid that these people split off to become a separate party. The Republican Party did not support (and actively opposed) Trump just as the Democratic Party did not support (and actively opposed) Bernie Sanders. They are two sides of the same coin (although I like Bernie Sanders better). This election has proven that the main stream candidates do not represent what the people want…..[/quote]

The election, so far at least, proves no such thing. Trump won. Trump won because he represents exactly what the Republican party has been selling for the last 3 1/2 decades. They’ve been selling that government is the problem. That the government is broken. That the government can’t solve problems. And the solution is to get rid of the government. Now they have a candidate who is promising to do just that. That the party elite now run from him is really incidental. The only difference between Trump and at least 1/2 of the other Republican candidates that he beat is subtlety. He says what they’ve only hinted at. They have plausible deniability. He doesn’t. That’s the only difference.

And Sanders didn’t win. Clinton did. Clearly there is support within the Democratic party for significant change. But that support did not extend to the majority of those that voted.[/quote]

In terms of your opinion about how Trump won, you might be right. However, there are (at least) two ways to sell something (1) sell people something that they already want; and (2) convince people that they want something and then offer it to them. Which works better? My sister was an EVP at a huge ad agency. They spent inordinate amounts of time figuring out what people wanted and then purported to give it to them. In my opinion, and it frightens me, Trump is what a lot of people want. I don’t think people had to be convinced (now or during the previous 35 or more years). My father in law used to say that there are million little Hitlers out there waiting for their chance – I think Trump just gave them their chance. I think a lot of my fellow Americans inexplicably want Trump and like the ridiculous things he says. A lot wanted Bernie, too. Based on his finances, he did outstandingly well.

I have said in other threads that I am disappointed in the quality of both of the candidates, although I would have to chose Clinton over Trump. Why can’t we find candidates who haven’t made suspicious amounts of money in real estate (or trading cattle), who don’t say racist things or stupid things like “I short circuited” and who don’t set my teeth on edge. I am hoping someday for a candidate that I am excited about . . .

[scaredyclassic]

trump is literally the biggest douchebag ever in the history of mankind.

[Author]

Posts