As trump is a big part of the media coverage these days its natural that he becomes part of conversation, the subject of Trump has come up more and more in my conversations with fellow Canadians and to date i've never heard any one say anything good about Trump basically he's viewed as a total ahole, making the broad assumption that is the general attitude Canadians have of the man i dont understand why so many Americans are liking this guy. ,is there something in the water down there?
Since it's not our election, we're free to dislike either candidate, or both.
In the U.S. if you dislike one candidate enough, you'll support the other, because it's pretty much a binary choice. Unless you really dislike both, in which case you vote Green or Libertarian or you rip up your ballot.
But people on the Republican side of things tend to really hate Clinton. I don't think it's for the same reasons that the Left criticizes her -- really, when has being a hawk ever been a problem for the Right? -- but she's married to a guy that many still deeply despise, and also she's a woman. And a Democrat. So for many, the only way to avoid President Clinton II is to give their full-throated support to the alternative. That's my guess, anyway.
Canadians love Trump. He allows Canadians to feel superior and is entertaining as well. So Canadians are riveted by him. Fixated on him. We talk about him, watch him, discuss him, open threads about him, and even dream about him. If he loses, Canadians, perhaps subconsciously, will be extremely devastated at the loss.
Sarcasm noted mark.
Yes I like Trump. No one has done more to destroy the reputation of the Republican Party than Donald Trump. I really enjoy watching them implode in slow motion. It's kind a like watching a cat killing a mouse, I'm into that actually.
I actually do not like either candidate..Yes I think that Trump is a sexist misogynistic boil on the armpit of humanity. That being said I also have a huge dislike for Hillary.
If I was able to vote I would spoil the ballot for President ticket and simply vote the rest of the ticket
Today though I am so glad that the role of the VP has not become what the founding fathers of the US envisioned which is the losing candidate for President becomes the VP
Today though I am so glad that the role of the VP has not become what the founding fathers of the US envisioned which is the losing candidate for President becomes the VP
Overall I'm inclined to agree. And if "Vice President Trump" were a heartbeat away from assuming the Presidency if Clinton were to get unforseeably shot or something then there wouldn't be enough Kevlar in the world to help her.
But at the same time, I wonder whether election campaigns might be a bit more civilized if the two candidates knew that one way or the other, they'd be working together. It could be the electoral version of:
I know one or two people here cheering for him. Both of them claim to be on the left. One is a full-on 9-11 and globalist conspiracist.
I am too concerned about someone getting killed, and the long term consequences of what he is doing to rejoice in what is happening to the Republican party.
I know one or two people here cheering for him.
Do you mean in your hometown? Or here at babble?
If it's at babble, are there prizes for correctly guessing who? :)
No, the people I know are openly cheering for him, while denying that they are. Both are on FB.
some people here are freaked if Clinton gets in Russia will declare WWIII. they're Trump all the way.
i don't even know what to say when i read or hear it.
mom lost it on her granddaughter (my 19 yo daughter) last night over the "Trump" issue and snopes of all things.
daughter got schooled. :)
I was going to sit this one out but I have to comment on Syria and the foreign policy of the 2 main players in the US. In everyone’s rush to demonize and dismiss Trump I afraid that the actual issues are being ignored. It’s clear that trump is a badly flawed candidate, but I am afraid that some of the issues he talks about are being tainted by trumps infamy.
(A little aside)I believe there is an undercurrent in the voting populace that trump was effectively been able to tap. I believe that trumps success that he has achieved is that reflecting economic hardship that people are going thru. Not usual racist riff raf that the republican party attracts. I think that trump has support of 38% of the voters, I refuse to believe they are all racists or even a quarter of them are. Trump is talking about jobs and trade or was when he was not ranting about cultural issues. This is the reason why trump was threat to Hillary.
Reading some of the comments in this thread I think I am living in bizarro land. I am a leftist and socialist and not a Bernie socialist, an actual socialist that believes that means of production should in the hands of the of masses. And yet apparently I am trump supporter when I mention the obvious. Hillary is a hawk on foreign policy compared to trump. People your disdain for trump is blinding you to the fact that some of policy that is talking about is really preferable to what Hillary is talking about. I am not saying that you should vote trump but letting in Hillary will have consequences.
All i'm hearing from Trump is glib rhetoric about making America great again,building a wall,halting all immigration from Muslim areas and hes going to bring all the jobs back,most of his vacuous nonesense is a never ending character assasination of his opponent who he has said he will throw in jail if he gets elected. Really? is this all it takes to get an American to vote for you?
Hillary on the other hand brings a lifetime of experience to the job=
If I was forced to pick between one or the other I would pick Trump for the selfish reason that he seems less inclined to start WW3 and get me killed.
I feel that Clinton is the better choice of the two. But I do wonder if the rhetoric about the threat of a Trump presidency isn't overblown somewhat. I mean, he'd be a celebrity President. So I figure the backroom types would put him out to dance for the people occasionally while they run the show in the background. Mind you, even if true, it's not necessarily better, since having decision making be a further step removed from the public isn't a great thing.
http://www.marketplace.org/2016/10/13/economy/americans-economic-anxiety...
Read it because its explains why trump is taken seriously.
" More than two-thirds of Americans — 68 percent — are either dissatisfied or angry with elected officials in Washington, D.C."
Hillary has 2 problems, people dont trust her and she is defending the status quo. This the same status quo that 68% find to be a problem.
Trump has my many problems but his branding was excellent. He represents anti washington and people eating it up. Hillary "experience" is one of washington insider which 68% people are unhappy with. I think trumps generally policy platform is non sense but i think hillary policy reposinves will turn out to be non effective. I veiw this through the eyes as leftist and socialist as such i view american capitialism in crisis. Again the branding is excellent for trump, as the polling represents more and more people think that the system(which hillary is tied to) is rigged against them.
I am not sympathic to trump but I am sympatic to the individuals who find there economic status in decline. I afraid that people that dismiss trump are likely to dimiss these individuals as being purely racist. People are suffering out there and by minimizing trump we tend dimiss these individuals as racist rather than people who are sinking and realizing that the american dream of the rising tide lifting all boats is a myth.
Well if all it takes is for a party to talk about real problems, or put the word socialist in their name, I think that one has been done before.
But yes, they seem to be falling for it just as much now as they did then.
I feel that Clinton is the better choice of the two. But I do wonder if the rhetoric about the threat of a Trump presidency isn't overblown somewhat. I mean, he'd be a celebrity President. So I figure the backroom types would put him out to dance for the people occasionally while they run the show in the background. Mind you, even if true, it's not necessarily better, since having decision making be a further step removed from the public isn't a great thing.
Agreed. Trump would be the shock-jock version of Ronald Reagan. His policies would likely be the same as anything another Republican president would have done, simply because they'd be dictated by the same people(and with less input from the POTUS himself in Trump's case). But instead of telling folksy anecdotes about playing catch with monkeys, Trump would just spew insulting invective against whatever group of people he was feeling animoisty toward at that moment, and his fan base would eat it up.
That said, a typical Republican president would be bad enough, and would probably be enough to convince me to hold my knows and vote for Clinton. I don't like to imagine what the US would be like today with a SCOTUS appointed entirely be Republican presidents.
First thing to remember is that USA forergn policy has not changed since WW2. There have been a number of presidents since then, both Demcrat and Republican, and nothing has changed. So anyone who thinks Donald Trump will change USA foreign policy is dreaming in technicolor.
So, with foreign policy off the table, what's left?
Another issue about Trump. He doesn't speak beyond a grade three level, and then he lies about everything and denies everything he said. He will make a statement, and then he will repeat the very same statement many times over to make it sound like he spoke a paragraph. For instance, he might say, I will build a wall. It will be a big wall. It will be a good wall. There will be a wall. It will be the biggest and the best wall that you have ever seen. It will be my wall. There will be a wall...Then, the next day when questioned about it, he will deny that he said that he will build a wall. So he stands for both building a wall and for not building a wall. He then appeals to those who want a wall and to those who do no want a wall, because he said both. He cannot provide specifics about the wall such as how many miles this wall will be, how much it will cost, how long it will take to build, how many people will be employed, what hoops must be jumped through to achieve this goal, nothing, because he cannot speak with any level of substance, depth, or insight beyond a grade three level. Also, when challenged for specifics, he lies and denies everything he said. He stands for everything and nothing at all. So, Donald Trump has no formal platform to offer the public. He is a bully. He is a pathological liar. He lacks the rudimentary communication skills to present a cohesive political platform even if he wanted to.
Remember, Donald Trump knows more about ISIS than the military generals do.
And Rev. Pesky, Donald Trump has said nothing on what he would do differently to improve their foreign policy either. All we know is that he thinks Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is bad, and his will be better. We are simply to trust him because he knows. And this is his same argument for domestic policy: Hillary will be bad, Donald will be good, trust him, he knows.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-t...
This a policy statement that Trump gave to media. I am going to see if I can the actually find the transcript.
Donald Trump outlined an unabashedly noninterventionist approach to world affairs Monday, telling The Washington Post's editorial board that he questions the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has formed the backbone of Western security policies since the Cold War.
Trump said that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. "We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore," Trump said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money."
Another issue about Trump. He doesn't speak beyond a grade three level, and then he lies about everything and denies everything he said. He will make a statement, and then he will repeat the very same statement many times over to make it sound like he spoke a paragraph. For instance, he might say, I will build a wall. It will be a big wall. It will be a good wall. There will be a wall. It will be the biggest and the best wall that you have ever seen. It will be my wall. There will be a wall...Then, the next day when questioned about it, he will deny that he said that he will build a wall. So he stands for both building a wall and for not building a wall. He then appeals to those who want a wall and to those who do no want a wall, because he said both. He cannot provide specifics about the wall such as how many miles this wall will be, how much it will cost, how long it will take to build, how many people will be employed, what hoops must be jumped through to achieve this goal, nothing, because he cannot speak with any level of substance, depth, or insight beyond a grade three level. Also, when challenged for specifics, he lies and denies everything he said. He stands for everything and nothing at all. So, Donald Trump has no formal platform to offer the public. He is a bully. He is a pathological liar. He lacks the rudimentary communication skills to present a cohesive political platform even if he wanted to.
My comment low grade communication, trump is talking to the voters which he wants to appeal to. Lets face it k to 12 public education is tied directly to the community you live in the US.
follow the link below for greater context.
http://literacyprojectfoundation.org/community/statistics/
The Nation
I feel that Clinton is the better choice of the two. But I do wonder if the rhetoric about the threat of a Trump presidency isn't overblown somewhat. I mean, he'd be a celebrity President. So I figure the backroom types would put him out to dance for the people occasionally while they run the show in the background. Mind you, even if true, it's not necessarily better, since having decision making be a further step removed from the public isn't a great thing.
Respectfully Mark I really have a hard time understanding this view (which is obviously expressed by many many people).
Trump is a celebrity for sure. He's a guy everyone loves to hate him. He makes it easy to hate him but just as easy to be entertained by him. I'm not sure if he would make an okay president or not, he seems successful enough running a business. When I look at all the shit Clinton and the Clinton Foundation is involved in I'm dumbfounded they aren't in jail. It only stands to reason when she is elected as president she will continue to behave the same way as she did secratary of state. I mean even just deleting those emails then trying to cover it up and interphere with the investigation, do Americans think she won't do the same stuff as the president?
As SoS she approved arms deals to Saudi Arabia whom are not only abusive towards women and womens rights but we see are also discreetly supporting ISIS/ISIL. These countries are donating milliosn and millions of dollars towards the Clinton Foundation. And that's not even beginning to talk about Hillaries involvement in vilifying and ruining the women who accused Bill Clinton of assault.
There's so much about Trump that makes him a douchbag but the stuff Hillary commited as the SoS and will in all likelihood continue to do as president? Wild.
I think Trump is all talk. I think Clinton is ready to send the US military to the remaining countries they have yet to bomb.
Can we assume you're neither Muslim nor Hispanic? Because that does make it easier to see the comparison solely in terms of who'll do what on the other side of the planet.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-t...
This a policy statement that Trump gave to media. I am going to see if I can the actually find the transcript.
Donald Trump outlined an unabashedly noninterventionist approach to world affairs Monday, telling The Washington Post's editorial board that he questions the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has formed the backbone of Western security policies since the Cold War.
Trump said that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. "We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore," Trump said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money."
There have been 12 presidents since WW2, evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Throughout, there has been no change to USA foreign policy. Carter, who was the 'humanitarian' started the nurturing of Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and was followed by Reagan the right-winger, who continued said policy. As folks around here are fond of saying, 'New boss same as old boss'.
Whatever Trump says, don't believe a word of it. Even if elected he would have to go to congress to get legislation passed, and that won't happen.
It is important to remember the office of the president is largely a symbolic one. Presidents, by themselves, don't have a lot of power. Even though bills have to start in the House of Representatives, the real power in the US government resides in the Senate. Without a friendly Senate, a president is more or less hamstrung.
Can we assume you're neither Muslim nor Hispanic? Because that does make it easier to see the comparison solely in terms of who'll do what on the other side of the planet.
Are you suggesting Muslims and Hispanics don't care about who gets bombed on the other side of the world?
If we accept the premise that Trump would be able to realize a less aggressive foreign policy than Clinton, there is no humanitarian comparison to be made, regardless of your race, religion, or gender. Whatever might be credibily imagined that Trump would do to American Muslims, American Hispanics, and Mexican Hispanics that are in America, pales in comparison to what Clinton's foreign policy has already done and will continue to do in the Middle East (to say nothing of Africa, South America, and potentially also Asia and Russia).
If someone makes a case like #24 for Trump on foreign policy grounds, challenge the premise, not the conclusion. From the premise above there can be only one conclusion. Speaking as a visible minority, anyone who votes to definitely kill foreigners for fear of the chance of non-life threatening discrimination at home is a sick and selfish human being.
Are you suggesting Muslims and Hispanics don't care about who gets bombed on the other side of the world?
Not at all.
Whatever might be credibily imagined that Trump would do to American Muslims, American Hispanics, and Mexican Hispanics that are in America, pales in comparison to what Clinton's foreign policy has already done and will continue to do in the Middle East (to say nothing of Africa, South America, and potentially also Asia and Russia).
I'm thinking that Muslims and Hispanics may or may not share your view that Clinton represents some inevitable WWIII. And/or that Trump wouldn't be just the same. Heck, some of them might realize that going to war isn't even up to the President -- he or she just signs the paper.
Anyway, "Make America Great Again", Cody.
I'm thinking that Muslims and Hispanics may or may not share your view that Clinton represents some inevitable WWIII. And/or that Trump wouldn't be just the same. Heck, some of them might realize that going to war isn't even up to the President -- he or she just signs the paper.
Should have said that the first time. Which was my whole point.
I thought your point was "Vote Trump".
Ha Ha HA you Canadians... always in our stuff when we can care less about yours.
I did my civic duty today and voted (early)... I'm not totally pleased with whom I had to vote for to be POTUSA. But to me a very big thing that weighs on me is I have to remember this person will get to select 1, for sure, and most likely 2 Supreme Court justices during their 4 year term. Right now the Supreme Court is "fairly" balanced between liberal and conservative judges... I do not want a president that would tilt the court to the right. That person would most likely be Trump. I can deal with 8 years of him or Clinton. I would dread an almost lifetime (seeing how I'm 56) under a conservative dominated Supreme Court. Fuck that... although I must confess I had/have this morbid sense of curiosity as to what a Trump presidency would be like... for like a mila-second. I'm sure I'm not the only USA American thinking that.
Ha Ha HA you Canadians... always in our stuff when we can care less about yours.
I did my civic duty today and voted (early)... I'm not totally pleased with whom I had to vote for to be POTUSA. But to me a very big thing that weighs on me is I have to remember this person will get to select 1, for sure, and most likely 2 Supreme Court justices during their 4 year term. Right now the Supreme Court is "fairly" balanced between liberal and conservative judges... I do not want a president that would tilt the court to the right. That person would most likely be Trump. I can deal with 8 years of him or Clinton. I would dread an almost lifetime (seeing how I'm 56) under a conservative dominated Supreme Court. Fuck that... although I must confess I had/have this morbid sense of curiosity as to what a Trump presidency would be like... for like a mila-second. I'm sure I'm not the only USA American thinking that.
although I must confess I had/have this morbid sense of curiosity as to what a Trump presidency would be like... for like a mila-second
My view is quite similar, its like looking at train wreck, you should look away but you cannot. As for being interested in usa politics you may or not know but we generally we watch your tv and read your media. I hope i dont insult my fellow canadians, we are throughly colonized by the usa on the culutral front. And intergration of the canadian economy is very real and it impacts on canadian economic outlook in big way. Personaly i would love to see more distance between our nations but the canadian population voted for intergration. If its wasn't the for the 2008 collaspe we would had a customs union with the US. Business interests in Canada were pushing hard fruther economic intergration.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/deeper-free-trade/article20440423/
Now the whole economic focus here is to expand exports to non american consumers. So far the results have been poor.
Yes I like Trump. No one has done more to destroy the reputation of the Republican Party than Donald Trump...
likewise no one ever has done more to destroy the credibility of the oligarchic system of the USA, the corporatist free trade agreements, the total lie of the oligarchic controlled main stream press including the CBC ad nauseum in Canada.......
My work involves working up close with the railroad, and unless the train wreck is a passenger train, train wrecks are not horrible things to see. They are just a bunch of derailed cars toppled over and piled up here, there, and everywhere in one big fuckin' mess. That's all.
But to me a very big thing that weighs on me is I have to remember this person will get to select 1, for sure, and most likely 2 Supreme Court justices during their 4 year term.
This is the one thing that the "Republicrat" critique always ignores: court appointments.
The majority in Obergeffel(to take a representative case) consisted of five judges, all of them Democrats except for Kennedy, who had been appointed way back in 1987, after Reagan failed to get his personal favorite Robert Bork on the court. And anyone who thinks that the 21st Century GOP is more likely to elevate a Kennedy than a Bork to the SCOTUS should reflect on two words: Harriet Miers.
And this actually isn't a question of Trump being a wild-eyed madman, it's just a question of him being a Republican. I actually think he'd be better(from a progressive standpoint) if he WAS acting on his own personal whims, since he's apparently been to "a lot of great gay weddings". But he's not gonna be the one calling the shots should be get to the White House.
likewise no one ever has done more to destroy the credibility of the oligarchic system of the USA, the corporatist free trade agreements, the total lie of the oligarchic controlled main stream press including the CBC ad nauseum in Canada.......
I'm not sure how Trump is supposed to be destroying free-trade agreements. Yeah, he's against a lot of them, but is it really a good thing for the anti-globalization movement to have their ideas associated with a guy who is considered a raving madman by about 50% of his own countrymen, and(just guessing here) about 70% of the world?
And factor in that, if elected, he's probably not gonna do much at all to stop these agreements, besides occassionally ranting aginst them in his own inimitable style. So, you basically end up with a guy who a) discredits the fair-trade movement by associating himself with it, and b) doesn't actually do anything to stop the agreements.
What no one brings up is that it doesn't matter what Trump says. He's still a Republican and it's the party's platform that will dictate policy.
There are a lot of brain-dead Americans who identify as progressive going on about Clinton being worse. The devil is in official party platform. We will all survive a Clinton presidency.The Republican Party platform is SO right wing that the Reagan administration look liberal (capital L at that)
although I must confess I had/have this morbid sense of curiosity as to what a Trump presidency would be like... for like a mila-second. I'm sure I'm not the only USA American thinking that.
Nor the only non-American. I don't want him to win, but if he were to then the only silver lining would be getting to see how it plays out.
I suppose this is a bit like watching a YouTube video of someone sticking firecrackers in their nose and lighting them. It seems like a poor idea by any account, but as long as it's someone else, let's see what happens. I felt the same way when France pretty much banned burqas. I would never vote for that here in Canada, but as long as they were going to do it no matter what I thought of it, I figured I'd watch and see how fundies reacted.
And FWIW, I'm still glad that he's the Republican who could still theoretically win, and not some young-Earth, holy-rollin', God-guns-and-guts Republican. At least if Trump rolls back gay rights, he'll make Mexico pay for it.
And FWIW, I'm still glad that he's the Republican who could still theoretically win, and not some young-Earth, holy-rollin', God-guns-and-guts Republican.
Thing is, I think the results will be the same whether it's some Christian fundamentalist who wins, or a guy like Trump.
Right now, the main agenda of the god-and-guns crowd is rolling back federal legislation and court decisions, thus allowing the states to ride roughshod over civil-rights. They likely don't really care if the guy doing it is a true-believer, or just cynically going along with it because he knows who brung him to the dance.
So, Trump doesn't have to be the personal embodiment of conservative Christian values. His relgiious supporters would probably be quite content were he to say stuff like "Hey, I've got nothing against gay marriage, but if you want that, you should come to New York, but don't try to force it on places that don't want it", as long such statements are followed by judicial appointments that back them up.
Right now, the main agenda of the god-and-guns crowd is rolling back federal legislation and court decisions, thus allowing the states to ride roughshod over civil-rights. They likely don't really care if the guy doing it is a true-believer, or just cynically going along with it because he knows who brung him to the dance.
Fair enough. Though I still think it would be interesting to see if the Donald would bend the knee. Because right now, when there's even more at stake, it seems like his knees don't bend that way.
Careful what you wish for. Pence has come out saying that upon victory,they'd pick a judge for the SC that wants to overturn Roe v Wade.
As for Trump himself,it's already been revealed that his son approached John Kasich to be his VP with the promise that Trump would be the figurehead and Kasich would be in charge of basically everything.
So a Trump presidency would actually be a Pence Presidency. A former open mouth radio host who is a raging social conservative. Not to mention that Trump,forget about everything he's saying,is a Republican and would fall right into line if he were elected.
Read the Republican platform. It's all there in black and white. The fact that anyone on the Left is even contemplating voting Trump should pump their brakes. The Repugnicans platform is probably the most regressive platform in American history.
The US and the world would be better off with Clinton. Her foreign policy is putrid but the Republican policy is worse and domestically,they'd drag the country back 60 + years.
Has anyone learned anything from Reagan? Or W Bush?
Not even the most twisted of thoughts I could bend in my mind would not rival the reality of a Trump presidency. Regardless what some may think of Clinton,the Repugs are extremists and when the elephant sneezes, WE catch a cold.
![http://i66.tinypic.com/339hap1.jpg[/IMG]](http://i66.tinypic.com/339hap1.jpg[/IMG]){kind=link}