[Hindsite]

Unless it's Buchanan or Ron Paul we won't see a real change.

None of them are real leaders like Trump.

[annatar1914]

@Political Interest you stated in reply to my comments about our out of touch and befuddled Elites, corrupt and wicked, that ;

Very much so. I'm not sure the old post-war establishment conservatism can ever really come back.

No, they won't be coming back, and like the political establishment of certain times and places like Weimar Germany, they won't be missed.

And then we turned to the Elites that will be replacing this present degenerate lot, the new leaders that will motivate and energize mankind;

And I have a sneaking suspicion we won't like them.

No, I don't think that I'll be liking them at all. They will be intrepid and cruel, hard men with hearts of stone, proud and amoral and glorying in their intellect and physical strength and beauty, remorseless and without a conscience. They will be like Neitzsche's ''Ubermensch''.

[Hong Wu]

Speaking of elites who are delusional, the left wing attacks on Marianne Williamson are super ironic. They say that we need people who will talk more policy than her. Last I checked, the left doesn't like talking policy to begin with. Unless you work at Vox or CNN and get to set the boundaries in such a way that you'll be predetermined to own the debate, most rank and file leftists quit policy debate a long time ago.

[foxdemon]

Williamson does have appeal that the typical candidate lacks, but so does Gabbard. The problem with Williamson is that she is racist.

The idea of slavery repatriations is an exercise in ethnic-revanchism. This way of thinking claims one group is a victim while scapegoating another ethnic group. This can only serve to perpetuate the historical grievances and ultimately the demonisation of the scapegoated group. To take advantage of that sort of politics can’t be described as ethical.

What she would be saying, if she was sincere in her desire to consolidate a post racist America, would be along the lines of collective human ownership of historical wrongs, rather than laying the blame on a particular ethnic group. I think this is the best approach, rather than ignoring the past. ignoring the past means no lesson has been learned to inform future notions of ethical limits on political behaviour.

There are plenty of other places this reasoning could be applied, for example, the history of Japan in Korea and China. Revanchism only keeps the conflict alive. Consider the Balkans and the length of time the historical grievances have been going on there. America does have an opportunity to show the world how it’s done. What a shame Democrats only want to take advantage of racism to gain power.

So I don’t think Williamson would make a good president at all.

Gabbard seems quite sensible. As to those on this thread talking about appearance, is it wise to judge a candidate on those grounds. After all, AOC has nice boobs but is batshit crazy. Would you elect her just because of her boobs? Though Gabbard is attractive, surely it is her political position that matters. She offers a way out of Imperialism and has the grace suitable for a president.

[Unthinking Majority]

Williamson is a bit of a spiritual nutter, but she makes a lot of sense in her campaigning and debate arguments. She won't win, but i like her a lot, and she's a fantastic speaker. She says what she thinks too, she's like the anti-Trump.

[Unthinking Majority]

Also, i want to have sex with Gabbard.

[Tainari88]

Williamson does have appeal that the typical candidate lacks, but so does Gabbard. The problem with Williamson is that she is racist.

The idea of slavery repatriations is an exercise in ethnic-revanchism. This way of thinking claims one group is a victim while scapegoating another ethnic group. This can only serve to perpetuate the historical grievances and ultimately the demonisation of the scapegoated group. To take advantage of that sort of politics can’t be described as ethical.

What she would be saying, if she was sincere in her desire to consolidate a post racist America, would be along the lines of collective human ownership of historical wrongs, rather than laying the blame on a particular ethnic group. I think this is the best approach, rather than ignoring the past. ignoring the past means no lesson has been learned to inform future notions of ethical limits on political behaviour.

There are plenty of other places this reasoning could be applied, for example, the history of Japan in Korea and China. Revanchism only keeps the conflict alive. Consider the Balkans and the length of time the historical grievances have been going on there. America does have an opportunity to show the world how it’s done. What a shame Democrats only want to take advantage of racism to gain power.

So I don’t think Williamson would make a good president at all.

Gabbard seems quite sensible. As to those on this thread talking about appearance, is it wise to judge a candidate on those grounds. After all, AOC has nice boobs but is batshit crazy. Would you elect her just because of her boobs? Though Gabbard is attractive, surely it is her political position that matters. She offers a way out of Imperialism and has the grace suitable for a president.

There is nothing crazy about AOC at all. She reflects the values of her 14th district community in the Bronx.

Her agenda is that of young democratic socialists who live in the East Coast. Nothing bat-shit about her at all. Green deals, and stopping global warming and getting ICE from dragging out housewives with kids from their homes and giving USA born children of immigrant parents to some social service agency to raise due to some old, obsolete, slow and draconian immigration policies from some old, racist tendencies of white supremacist misogynistic, inconsistent, unprincipled, nepotism ridden old orange tan man is not being crazy. It is being SANE in a crazy world. Especially crazy right wing racist world in a nation that has tremendous diversity of ethnic groups. If you want to rip the fabric of a society apart? You play up the ethnic differences. That is what that con man president does. Play on people's fears and ignorant racism.

And what do the size or shape of her tits have to do with her political acumen anyway? Only some foolish superficial idiots mention things like that about a politician? I don't give a damn about Donald Trump's fat ass or fat belly or horrible combover. If he was some kind of decent statesman that would not matter and it doesn't really affect anyone. But he consistently judges women and others with less power than what he holds by some superficial dumb assessment. It demonstrates his consciousness. That of a manipulating, callous piece of foul humanity.

[foxdemon]

If we are just talking about sexual attractiveness, what about the other three squad members?

Two of them are bush pigs. I can’t many men voting for them on appearance.

Ilhan would be attractive if she wasn’t so evil. A dark heart makes someone who would otherwise be attractive, look ugly. One would think the Democrats would expel an obvious racist anti-Semite. Do they keep her because they think she is cute or because they are racist themselves?

[Zionist Nationalist]

AOC is not even a real figure there are powerfull people behind her back who tell her what to do they also write her speeches
she is dumb as fuck the moment she speaks out of her script she is completely lost

same goes for the rest of "the squad"

[Hong Wu]

Marianne has decreed that an "ancient strain of misogyny" is keeping her out of the next Democratic debates. Those who control the polls control the debates

[Tainari88]

This Marianne person is a product of the USA. For sure.

Lol.

[Hindsite]

If we are just talking about sexual attractiveness, what about the other three squad members?

Two of them are bush pigs. I can’t many men voting for them on appearance.

Ilhan would be attractive if she wasn’t so evil. A dark heart makes someone who would otherwise be attractive, look ugly. One would think the Democrats would expel an obvious racist anti-Semite. Do they keep her because they think she is cute or because they are racist themselves?

Now you hit on the truth. The Democrats have been racist for decades. They have a habit of calling others racist in order to distract from their own racism.

[BigSteve]

Would you describe a person who is hated by more than half the people he meets popular? No, you wouldn't. Why is this exception made for Trump in your mind?

What sort of data can you produce which supports your claim that half the people he meets hate him?

I'm guessing you have none and, instead, are just belching up nonsense...

[SpecialOlympian]

The popular vote of our most recent presidential election.

[BigSteve]

The popular vote of our most recent presidential election.

You said Trump "is hated by more than half the people he meets."That's a statement of fact as opposed to an opinion. So, considering he probably hasn't met every idiot who didn't vote for him, please provide something to back up your stupid claim.

Unless you can't.

See, I don't believe Trump has met everyone who didn't vote for him, so your attempt at making a point is a spectacular failure.

Casting a vote for someone doesn't mean you "hate" anyone. It should mean that you agree with enough of what the person stands for that you want to vote for them.

Just go ahead and admit that your unsupportable comment was stupid so we can move on...

[SpecialOlympian]

I used it as an example of defining popularity. More than half the voting population did not vote for Trump. He won the White House but lost the popularity contest.

If you are still struggling with this concept then you can view one of the many, many approval polls where Trump polls under 50%.

[BigSteve]

I used it as an example of defining popularity. More than half the voting population did not vote for Trump. He won the White House but lost the popularity contest.

If you are still struggling with this concept then you can view one of the many, many approval polls where Trump polls under 50%.

But the concept we're discussing has nothing to do with voting for someone, nor does it have anything to do with the electoral college (presumably where you were headed) and it has nothing to do with popularity. It has to do with the fact that you said he "is hated by more than half the people he meets."

It's simply impossible for you to prove that.

In our last Mayoral election, I voted for the incumbent; a Democrat (yes, it's true). I didn't "hate" her opponent, I just liked what she had been doing for our city, I liked the plans she had in place and I liked the direction she was taking the city.

Her opponent, a fine man in his own right, is someone who had some good ideas and some bad (as did the woman I voted for), but not enough for him to earn my vote. That's it. That's the long and short of it.

In your world, though, I guess that equates to "hate", and that's just a monumentally stupid thing to suggest.

It's understandable why you want to redirect the discussion, though. You realize that you're incapable of supporting what you said but, instead of simply demonstrating the strong character required to admit you were wrong, you suddenly want to talk about approval polls and popularity contests, which have exactly dick to do with your comment.

Not voting for someone doesn't automatically mean you hate them.

Yours was just a stupid statement, if for no other reason than you can't possibly support it. Therefore, it's wholly unworthy of even a passing consideration...

[SpecialOlympian]

I already addressed your point in that I was using it as an example. Besides, a vote is a literal popularity contest. Trump lost the popularity contest portion of the popular vote. I'm sorry that this fact causes you so much grief.

My example was also in the context of the idea that Trump is not persuasive. Losing a popularity contest is the literal definition of not being a master persuader, as Scott Adams would call it.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

He was also keen to engage in New York’s high society – and in The Art of the Deal wrote about his numerous attempts to become a member of Le Club, a prestigious spot frequented by socialites, actors and sports stars. In the 1980s, he began planting stories about himself in New York tabloids – sometimes calling up reporters pretending to be his own publicist to brag about actors and celebrities who wanted to date him. He wanted to get his name out, to be famous, to make it in the city that never sleeps.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... popularity

Planting stories in the media to make yourself look popular is not the action of a popular person.

In New York City, Trump, like any interloper, took advantage of the tools available to him. Specifically, he manipulated the Manhattan-based mass media to create a national identity as a celebrity. Trump didn’t care about being right or smart or ethical, only about being known.

In 1989, he took out $85,000 in full-page newspaper ads calling for the death penalty after five young African American men were arrested for attacking the Central Park jogger. The charges against them were ultimately dismissed.

The kid from Queens made it across the East River into Manhattan, but he never absorbed the values of New Yorkers and the importance of immigration, global trade, higher education and the free press. Trump’s presidency is actually based on a rejection of “New York values.”

But his career assaulting the political and cultural elites of New York taught him one lesson: Even a bad bully can have a fan club.

News reports now have him marveling that New Yorkers who once wouldn’t give him the time of day — like the former Goldman Sachs chieftain Gary Cohn — now work for him.

In light of his history, the Trump campaign promise to “take back America” was more than an empty slogan. It’s a genuine reflection of his inability to fit into the cultural and economic arena of New York City where he was never recognized as a person of consequence.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/ope ... 588231.php

The city, for the admittedly shallow, ever-transactional Trump, was a place not to be experienced so much as exploited. The interest was not mutual: To most of New York’s elite, whose acceptance he sought, Trump was far too brash and gauche. He was an outer-borough outsider, bankrolled by his politically connected father. He wanted to be taken seriously, but seldom was. “He’s a bridge-and-tunnel guy, and he’s a daddy’s boy,” Lou Colasuonno, a former editor of the New York Post and the New York Daily News, said in a recent interview. “There were people who laughed at him,” former CBS anchor and current outspoken Trump critic Dan Rather told me. While his loose-lipped, in-your-face approach appealed to blue-collar types in spots in Brooklyn, Staten Island and Queens, many in Manhattan, Rather says, considered him “repulsive.”

For Trump, as inhospitable as he found the city on the street, the parlors of high society were equally problematic—and he created a refuge. It was some 600 feet in the sky, where the faucets were gold, the baseboards were onyx and the paintings on the ceiling, he would claim, were comparable to the work of Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. At the top of Trump Tower, biographer Tim O’Brien told me, he could live “at a remove from the city and its amazing bloodstream of ideas and people and culture”—“encased,” added fellow biographer Gwenda Blair, “within this bubble of serenity and privilege.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... 80s-215316

If you meet him in business, you hate him for bilking you on contracts. If you meet him socially, you hate him for being a humourless narcissistic bully. If you're a woman, you hate him for being a sexual predator. If you're not white, you hate him for being a racist. If you like animals, you hate him for hating animals. If you support law and order, you hate him for being a crook.

[BigSteve]

I already addressed your point in that I was using it as an example. Besides, a vote is a literal popularity contest. Trump lost the popularity contest portion of the popular vote. I'm sorry that this fact causes you so much grief.

My example was also in the context of the idea that Trump is not persuasive. Losing a popularity contest is the literal definition of not being a master persuader, as Scott Adams would call it.

But we weren't talking about how popular he is.

But, if you want to go down that road, chew on this: He was popular enough to defeat Clinton and win the Presidency.

And that's all that matters.

You said half of everyone her meets hates him. That's a statement which you absolutely cannot support. You're just unable to admit that, so you try to deflect the conversation to something which means nothing in the context of the current discussion.