Why the pessimism about Donald Trump here?

[Calthrina950]

One thing I have noticed, as I have looked through posts and topics here, is that many seem to be pessimistic about Donald Trump's chances as President. Now, I know that Trump is a repulsive character for many people, and I can understand that. Yet at the same time, it seems that all the election scenarios and all the maps are pointed in the direction of a Trump failure? Would people here be making the same prediction about Hillary Clinton, had she won the election?

[Calthrina950]

Personally, I am glad that Trump defeated Clinton. In my view, despite his comments and his off-handed behavior, I think it was better for us that Trump won, rather than her. Hillary Clinton would have represented the continuation of the status quo. She would have been dogged by more scandals, and that would have been horrendous for the United States. Moreover, her behavior during her husband's administration, her time as Senator, and as Sec. of State, suggests that she would have been out for herself.

But here, I haven't seen much discussion of these facets of her character.

[Calthrina950]

Between his twitter rants, zero political experience, and his multiple bankruptcies many of us don't have faith in his abilities

The trouble I have with threads/questions like this is that I can never seem to find a way to include all of Trump's issues in just one post. For instance, I look at your post and wonder, "this really needs to have 'sexual abuses,' 'numerous instances of cheating contractors out of their money just because he can,' and 'constant bullying of anyone who even slightly goes against him'."

Then of course I'll look at that post and think it's missing even more. My point is, Trump has so many terrible negative attributes that almost no single post or even series of posts does it justice. He is arguably the most god awful politician in modern American history, and a bad, bad person in general. On top of that, in some areas he is savvy but many others that actually count, he's dumb as a bag of rocks and his narcissistic personality seems to prevent him from ever even trying to learn anything. This and his highly superficial view of the world and life in general makes it very difficult for me to ever think he will make a net positive contribution to America, probably due to a powerful combination of sheer incompetence and corruption.

She would have been dogged by more scandals, and that would have been horrendous for the United States. Moreover, her behavior during her husband's administration, her time as Senator, and as Sec. of State, suggests that she would have been out for herself.

In that case, all that is happened is exchanging Clinton's scandals for Trump's scandals and selfish pursuit of policies. Clinton probably would have had even more scandals, but at least her policy platform wasn't so blatantly geared towards taking from workers and transferring to the wealthy.

If you think Trump is going to be any better, you need to take a closer look at Trump's history and the kind of man he is. It's not like he is a complex man. His terrible nature is clear as day, and he has seemingly worked to make it so.

But I think that a major reason for Trump's victory is that people were tired of political dynasties, tired of the nonsense. Yes, Trump is not perfect. In fact, I did not vote for him, nor for Hillary Clinton; I thought at one point that neither nominee was a good choice. However, now that the election has transpired, and things have proceeded along, I have come to recognize, even more so then before, that it is better to have him then it would have been to have Hillary Clinton.

You say that Hillary's platform was not as toxic to Americans as Trump's. I would disagree. Hillary's platform was not really hers at all. She stole ideas from Bernie Sanders and his movement, trying to push them off as her own. Moreover, her association with the Obama Administration, and with the same-old policies of free trade (i.e. TPP) and of aggressiveness in foreign policy matters were in themselves repulsive. Hillary also claimed to be for women's rights: how could this be the case when she attacked and slandered all of the women who had been abused by her husband? Moreover, she aided and abetted her husband in those acts, for all of these years.

Hillary Clinton, as revealed by the Wikileaks and by her own behavior, as well as through the testimony of so many who have known her, is a liar, a fraud, and a cheat. For decades, she pursued power and wealth, caring not for the American people. That was the purpose of her run for the presidency, and the motivation behind all of her actions. She tied herself to her husband for her own advancement. I think she would never have made a name for herself on her own merit. Her own personality would not have attracted anyone on that basis.

Now for Trump, I believe many of his policy stances are correct. Jobs do need to come back to this country; there needs to be an improvement in our economic circumstances. We have to restore our respect in the world, maintain the strength of our military, and promote our own interests. Hillary Clinton would not have done any of this. She would have eroded the Second Amendment, and would have let the working classes go down the drain. That is why I cannot understand the defense and idolization of her.

[Calthrina950]

Because he's demonstrated that he is not qualified to lead? Every day since the election, he has shown more and more how unqualified he is to lead.

So you would rather have a woman who, "qualified" by virtue of holding different offices, nevertheless had no accomplishments of her own to speak of; who took advantage of others for her own purposes; and who is known to be a heartless, repulsive woman concerned only about her own advancement? I would rather have a political rookie win the White House than someone marred by scandal, who is also untrustworthy and greedy.

[Calthrina950]

These sources: http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency and http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/10-ways-obama-has-failed-as-president/ list many of the reasons why Obama's Presidency did not turn out be as "good" as many in this country had hoped for. From this, it is clear to me why Trump won, and Hillary did not. Voters in the Rust Belt, in particular, were turned off by the excessive focus of the Democratic Party upon "identity politics", their leftward turn on so many issues in regards to society and economics, and the stagnation of their economic conditions. I am not saying that Trump will bring back all of their jobs, or that the situation will be completely reversed. What I am saying is that voters saw, and believed, that Hillary Clinton would not be the one to reverse the situation.

Moreover, I think the county-by-county map shows the extent of Hillary's weakness. More than two hundred counties, which had voted for Obama twice, switched to Trump. Trump won six states (Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida) which had voted for Obama twice, and two (Indiana, North Carolina) which had gone for him in 2008. He came within a hair's breath of winning Maine, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, and he had a serious chance in Colorado, Nevada, and even New Mexico. To me, this is the definition of appeal. Yes, you say Hillary won the popular vote, but all of that is from the numbers she obtained in California and in New York (primarily NYC). Outside of those two populous states, she lost the popular vote. She lost the Rust Belt, she lost independents, and she lost the critical battleground states.

Consequently, I feel that if Trump does well these next four years, then we will have some sense restored. Hillary Clinton would have continued and worsened our stagnation, and she would have not lifted a finger to help workers and others who feel left behind in today's economy.

[Calthrina950]

Because he's demonstrated that he is not qualified to lead? Every day since the election, he has shown more and more how unqualified he is to lead.

So you would rather have a woman who, "qualified" by virtue of holding different offices, nevertheless had no accomplishments of her own to speak of; who took advantage of others for her own purposes; and who is known to be a heartless, repulsive woman concerned only about her own advancement? I would rather have a political rookie win the White House than someone marred by scandal, who is also untrustworthy and greedy.

First off, experience counts when you are running for President and I think would rather have someone who has held office before as President over a complete novice. Second, Clinton has a substantial amount of accomplishments that she achieved on her own, whereas Trump was given a check by his father. If you think Trump isn't out for himself, then you are not well informed.

If we want to talk about heartless and repulsive, just read about Trump's past antics. And untrustworthy and greedy describe Trump's entire career. But at the end of the day, it's pointless making these comparisons, because the election is over and Trump is President.

Ha ha! Hillary Clinton has achieved nothing. She failed the bar in D.C., and made her way only because of moving to Arkansas and marrying Bill Clinton. It was him that got her set up in the Rose Law Firm, and it was his position, his image, that allowed for her to win that safe Democratic seat in New York. She had no significant policy proposals of her own while in the Senate (unless if you count naming post offices and banning flag-burning as being such). Hillarycare in 1994 failed; and then, while Secretary of State, her Russian "reset" failed. The e-mail server and Benghazi further clouded her service; her policies in the Middle East and towards China were disastrous. To say nothing of the Clinton Foundation, "pay to play", and the uranium deal in Russia, from which she and her husband gave profit to their friends. Also, her high-priced speeches on Wall Street, her attacks on women, her lies before Congress, her lies to the American public, her antics against Bernie Sanders, her ties to Hollywood and Wall Street, her support for TPP, her lack of understanding for the average man, her comment about the "basket of deplorables", etc. I could go on and on.

And don't forget Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Filegate, Travelgate, and all of that mess during her husband's administration. Hillary Clinton demonstrated, through all of this, that she was unfit to be President. I am so glad that we are done with Clintons and Bushes, at least for now.

[Calthrina950]

Any time somebody starts out saying, "I first thought they were both equally bad," there's a 99.9% chance they're going to come out within 3 or 4 posts as a far right hack.

Not necessarily. I am actually registered as a political independent, and I preferred Obama over McCain and Romney, in both 2008 and 2012. But I absolutely despise Hillary Clinton, and I have no qualms about showing my happiness that she lost.

[Calthrina950]

These sources: http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency and http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/10-ways-obama-has-failed-as-president/ list many of the reasons why Obama's Presidency did not turn out be as "good" as many in this country had hoped for. From this, it is clear to me why Trump won, and Hillary did not. Voters in the Rust Belt, in particular, were turned off by the excessive focus of the Democratic Party upon "identity politics", their leftward turn on so many issues in regards to society and economics, and the stagnation of their economic conditions. I am not saying that Trump will bring back all of their jobs, or that the situation will be completely reversed. What I am saying is that voters saw, and believed, that Hillary Clinton would not be the one to reverse the situation.

Moreover, I think the county-by-county map shows the extent of Hillary's weakness. More than two hundred counties, which had voted for Obama twice, switched to Trump. Trump won six states (Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida) which had voted for Obama twice, and two (Indiana, North Carolina) which had gone for him in 2008. He came within a hair's breath of winning Maine, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, and he had a serious chance in Colorado, Nevada, and even New Mexico. To me, this is the definition of appeal. Yes, you say Hillary won the popular vote, but all of that is from the numbers she obtained in California and in New York (primarily NYC). Outside of those two populous states, she lost the popular vote. She lost the Rust Belt, she lost independents, and she lost the critical battleground states.

Consequently, I feel that if Trump does well these next four years, then we will have some sense restored. Hillary Clinton would have continued and worsened our stagnation, and she would have not lifted a finger to help workers and others who feel left behind in today's economy.

Since when does GOP care about people other than the rich? I thought if you are left behind, it's all your fault and should take personal responsibility?

And exactly what has Trump done to lift a finger to help workers? By stiffing workers?

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

[Calthrina950]

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

I'm curious what your point is. What you posted doesn't seem to tie much into your original post. You've been taking this large deviations from your original question to bash Hillary on just about everything there is.

This reminds me of jfern's "but hillary" games.

I am just trying to rebut the points made by everyone else here. And my original post does relate to these contentions. I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton. Hence, my question as to why the views on Trump are so dark.

[Calthrina950]

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

I'm curious what your point is. What you posted doesn't seem to tie much into your original post. You've been taking this large deviations from your original question to bash Hillary on just about everything there is.

This reminds me of jfern's "but hillary" games.

I am just trying to rebut the points made by everyone else here. And my original post does relate to these contentions. I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton. Hence, my question as to why the views on Trump are so dark.

You have to be feigning ignorance not to know of his vile character.

I am not "feigning ignorance". I'm just astonished that people here to seem to think Hillary was an angel, above reproach, and posed to become our "savior". When nothing could be further from the truth.

[Calthrina950]

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

I'm curious what your point is. What you posted doesn't seem to tie much into your original post. You've been taking this large deviations from your original question to bash Hillary on just about everything there is.

This reminds me of jfern's "but hillary" games.

I am just trying to rebut the points made by everyone else here. And my original post does relate to these contentions. I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton. Hence, my question as to why the views on Trump are so dark.

You have to be feigning ignorance not to know of his vile character.

I am not "feigning ignorance". I'm just astonished that people here to seem to think Hillary was an angel, above reproach, and posed to become our "savior". When nothing could be further from the truth.

Haha, putting "savior" in quotes as though anybody but you said it.

But that doesn't address what I have been arguing.  And it was meant as a symbolic descriptor of what people have expressed here.

[Calthrina950]

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

I'm curious what your point is. What you posted doesn't seem to tie much into your original post. You've been taking this large deviations from your original question to bash Hillary on just about everything there is.

This reminds me of jfern's "but hillary" games.

I am just trying to rebut the points made by everyone else here. And my original post does relate to these contentions. I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton. Hence, my question as to why the views on Trump are so dark.

You have to be feigning ignorance not to know of his vile character.

I am not "feigning ignorance". I'm just astonished that people here to seem to think Hillary was an angel, above reproach, and posed to become our "savior". When nothing could be further from the truth.

What in the world makes you think there is a pro Hillary consensus on this forum? Have you seen some of the threads from early 2016?

Hint: Bashing Trump does not equal supporting Hillary.

The posts I have seen and the arguments made. I know that there are Trump supporters here, but as with many forums on the Internet, liberals greatly outnumber conservatives. Moreover, I get the feeling that as goes with Hillary, so goes with Obama. Most people here seem to have a very high opinion of him, though he has failed as President. I am befuddled by why certain opinions come together in such a manner.

[Calthrina950]

I honestly don't really understand the point of this thread. Even the most delusional democratic hacks on this forum have recognised that Hillary was a terrible candidate whatever her merits as a potential President. You seem to be arguing against a straw man in that regards. However, she is now irrelevant. From now on, whatever she may or may not have done only exists as a hypothetical, so we can fully start to pick apart what Trump plans for his time in office. So far, his actions have confirmed he is a moronic hack, a slave to the most basal of republican orthodoxy, borderline incoherent in his messaging and outright crooked in his deals. The fact that Hillart said calllous stuff occasionally and was lax with her email security is now by the by.

That is true, but the main point of this thread was to examine attitudes towards Trump. And the fact is that everyone here, who has commented here, is united in opposition to Trump. What gives? I would give the man a chance. What would you say if Trump succeeded, and was reelected to a second term?

In my mind, the majority of the electorate voted for change, and Hillary Clinton didn't embody that. Political dynasty was rejected.

[Calthrina950]

I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton.

Before the election, this forum consisted of 72% Hillary Supporters, 25% Trump supporters and 3% who still have not figured out what this forum actually is, but hang around anyway. That's me.

Immediately after the election, some of the loudest Hillary supporters simply vanished. But the number of democratic leaning members would still be in the 60-70% range.

Looking from outside the USA in, as a whole right now, it needs a full frontal lobotomy back to 1956 and start again.

The USA has lost the freakin' plot. $20 Trillion in debt is non-negotiable. You need the toe-cutter brought in.

Astonishing numbers, I would say. It seems as if online forums do attract more liberal members, for some reason. I have never been able to understand why. But now I know the main reason for why people are so negative to Trump, and that answers my question.

[Calthrina950]

Personally, I am glad that Trump defeated Clinton. In my view, despite his comments and his off-handed behavior, I think it was better for us that Trump won, rather than her. Hillary Clinton would have represented the continuation of the status quo. She would have been dogged by more scandals, and that would have been horrendous for the United States. Moreover, her behavior during her husband's administration, her time as Senator, and as Sec. of State, suggests that she would have been out for herself.

But here, I haven't seen much discussion of these facets of her character.

For one, it's now irrelevant.

For another, yes, she had flaws. Especially as a campaigner. But she had a long history as an effective establishment technocrat bureaucrat.


As someone opposed to the status quo, the choice between Clinton and Trump seemed to be the choice between bus drivers. The bus is heading to a place I don't really want to go. Clinton would have kept going the same (wrong) direction. Sure, she might have pocketed an extra 5 cents per ticket, or delayed some non-critical maintenance. But she also would have kept the passenger compartment a civilized place. And she would have kept the bus on the road, in its lane. It might even have been a pleasant drive.

Trump, by comparison, is a drunk driver waving a gun with an unknown number of bullets. Some passengers wonder if he's got a bomb vest under his jacket. He raves at other passengers that they should throw people off the bus. He's put the pedal to the floor, and forget the staying in the right lane, we'll be lucky to stay on the road. There are noises coming from under the hood, and he tells everyone to ignore them, it'll be fine. He says the same thing about the cop cars outside, and threatens to shoot anyone who points out that he's wearing a hat that has "State Mental Hospital" printed on it instead of "Bus Driver". Then he says he's the best bus driver ever, in a slurred voice.

I don't think so. In my opinion, Hillary would have been worse. At least with Trump, we will get something different. It's not a bad thing to try something new from time to time.

[Calthrina950]

1. America is polarized into two different political universes, mutually exclusive and believing nearly-diametric opposites of what each other believe in. We have some honest-to-Mussolini fascists in the GOP and sober liberals in the Democratic Party...and that is as opposite as one can get. (Were it Commies in the Democratic Party and sober conservatives in the GOP, that observation would hold),

People are not moving away from their beliefs.

2. Donald Trump has chosen to go with extremism, going to a position in which wealth and corporate power are the real measures of political legitimacy.If 95% of the American people suffer greatly for only 2% who matter -- that's how he wants it.

3. We have questions of outside influence in the elections -- influence from outside the USA, from a firmly-authoritarian regime. Foreigners are not allowed even to make campaign contributions to Presidential and Congressional campaigns.  It would be bad enough if some State governor suppressed the vote -- but if foreigners got involved... we had a sham of an election.

4. We have an incoming President unlike any other in American history -- one who barks orders like a dictator, one who has promoted ethnic and religious bigotry, one who has admitted to grabbing women by their crotches... He has claimed to know more than the generals about war despite having never served in combat.  He has a stormy relationship with the CIA and the FBI.

He is no gentleman. He is no expert. He has a shady record as a businessman. Why should we expect him to grow into the Presidency?

5. He has a shaky mandate. He got about as much of a share of the popular vote as two Presidential nominees who are generally understood to have been trounced. -- less than 46% of the vote. He did better than Mike Dukakis in 1988 and John McCain in 2008 and got less than the winner of the popular vote.

6. He has shown contempt for science and education in favor of his personal intuition and the values of special interests.

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN? -- sure. Only for the upper 2%. The rest of us can work longer and harder under more brutal management for far less. All for Pharaoh.

How bad is Donald Trump? I expect big growth in the Communist Party (by its standards). I expect more people to emigrate. High-tech companies will find it harder to recruit and maintain highly-trained people in America. Secession movements will pop up where they have not existed before.

There can be only one good result for four years of the Trump Administration -- that people have learned  to stay clear of demagogues who show signs of sociopathy.
 

It amazes me how people here are into the habit of denigrating and denouncing Trump. People here say "he will ruin America" or "he will be a horrible President" or "he is a worthless, lying scumbag and pig". Yet all of these could easily have been descriptors of Hillary Clinton. People here seem to ignore all of the evil deeds committed by the Clintons over the past forty years. And they seem to defend their choice to vote for a woman who asked "why I am not fifty points ahead?" That is the height of insanity.

[Calthrina950]

Problem is that most of the evil deeds committed by the Clintons aren't true. The Clintons have been accused of a lot of things, from corruption in Arkansas to murdering their best friend. They have been investigated by many, many people and no one really came up with any proof for these actions.
Only right-wing hacks and morons believe all the stories about Bill and Hillary Clinton.

And I am saying this as someone who is not a big fan of either Clinton.

Trump on the other hand is on record saying horrible things. He is widely known within New York City to be a con-artist. He scammed many people.

And the height of insanity? America has reached that point when Trump was elected.

Not true? The Clintons have been able, by virtue of their position, their wealth, their lies, and their influence, to escape from the charges levied against them. There have been so many accounts written of their horrible behavior, both in Arkansas and in the White House. So many people have testified against them, and there have been so many scandals attached to them. Moreover, note all of the women who have accused Bill Clinton of having raped, assaulted, or sexually abused them. There are too many cases to be dismissed. Also, the numerous accounts that have been written about the Clintons and their corruption, their lies, and their filth. From all of the accounts about Hillary's corrupt behavior and her antics towards her subordinates, to the exposure, in "Clinton Cash", of their profiteering and opportunism through the Clinton Foundation.

You are really buying into the message of the mainstream media and of the Clinton apologists if you believe they are innocent.

[Calthrina950]

Very interesting partisan stuff there, but you seem to be consistently ignoring everybody's point so you can endlessly repeat yourself.

No, I get what you are saying, it's just that I vehemently disagree with your viewpoints.