Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Brian]

I wonder at those missing Saul's point. Hillary's behavior in regard to Bill's philandering IS revealing of character.

Well, the difference here is that you articulated a point about character, while Saul simply raved incomprehensible and Puritan-sounding things. I think you're giving him too much credit by translating his posts in the most logical possible light.

[mc ukrneal]

This thread reminds me a Groucho Marx quote:

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."

[28Orot]

incomprehensible and Puritan-sounding things

[Ken B]

Well, the difference here is that you articulated a point about character, while Saul simply raved incomprehensible and Puritan-sounding things. I think you're giving him too much credit by translating his posts in the most logical possible light.

I err in comprehending the incomprehensible?

[Karl Henning]

Parenthetically, the Lord of Misrule comes to Boston for a lunch just across the street Monday.  Potential business disruption?  You betcha.

[Karl Henning]

http://www.youtube.com/v/ziwYbVx_-qg

[Karl Henning]

"I can't stay forever . . . ."

[Ken B]

I apologize and withdraw. Will you withdraw your rejoinder?

You mean, will I delete mine if you delete yours? Yes.

[Gurn Blanston]

Let me summarize.
People who object to Trump based on his character object to Saul objecting to Hillary based on her character.

Well, you aren't talking about me then. I object to Trump based on his stated political stands. The many character flaws are of no consequence to me.

[Brian]

Well, you aren't talking about me then. I object to Trump based on his stated political stands. The many character flaws are of no consequence to me.

I think he might be talking about me, but of course, I'm not disagreeing with Saul's right to criticize Hillary, only the content of his criticism; and there is no hypocrisy in simply having different values.

[Ken B]

Well, you aren't talking about me then. I object to Trump based on his stated political stands. The many character flaws are of no consequence to me.

And you can't attack Trump on policy, because unlike Hillary, he hasn't put anything out there, other than when he gets in the White House, he's gonna be the greatest President of all time. 
...
And yes, I was a Republican for 30 years, until the assholes drove me away by collectively being the biggest bunch of douche bags Washington has ever seen.

Issues! Not douchebaggery!

[kishnevi]

You mentioned ethics. Are those enforceable or constitutional?

I wonder at those missing Saul's point. Hillary's behavior in regard to Bill's philandering IS revealing of character. This is undeniable I think. Whether you argue it shows

• a disregard of decorum and morality
• a kind and forgiving nature
• a cynical decision to keep her wagon hitched to his

it does provide clues about Hillary's character. Saul objects to the kind of character he sees revealed. You don't have to agree either with his inference or his judgment to understand it.

It does show one thing:
a woman who, finding herself the focus of intense public humiliation, with everyone in the world (possibly literally everyone in the world) knowing her husband was a serial adulterer,  decided to fulfill her marriage vow of "until death do us part". 

Now contrast that with Trump....

[28Orot]

It does show one thing:
a woman who, finding herself the focus of intense public humiliation, with everyone in the world (possibly literally everyone in the world) knowing her husband was a serial adulterer,  decided to fulfill her marriage vow of "until death do us part". 

Now contrast that with Trump....

Just so that she would be president...
Puuuuuuuulize don't make a saint out of her  0:)

[Rinaldo]

The entire Media and his democratic bedfellows stood at his side and supported this indecent human being, so for his wife to come out and have the audacity to run again as president after what her husband did, just shows her wicked and crud personality.

Quite the contrary. It shows a strong woman who didn't let her life to be overtaken by her husband's dick. I'm not a fan of Hillary the politician, but how she managed to live through all the humiliation and keep the family together, that's not shameful – it's inspiring.

Well if someone sides with a terrorist organization that has written on its charter to murder every single Jew on the planet, over a free and a democratic country is a monster.

Sides with? Check your facts, the reality is much more complicated, as is everything in that sad corner of the world.

[Gurn Blanston]

It does show one thing:
a woman who, finding herself the focus of intense public humiliation, with everyone in the world (possibly literally everyone in the world) knowing her husband was a serial adulterer,  decided to fulfill her marriage vow of "until death do us part". 

Now contrast that with Trump....

I was wondering if anyone else noticed that... let's see, she promised to stay till the end, so did he. He broke his promise and hurt her badly, but she hung on anyway because a vow is a vow. God, what an immoral witch she is!   

Issues! Not douchebaggery!

Yes, that's my motto. Other than by being the greatest president ever, how does Trump plan on dealing with some of the issues facing the country. Pick one, tell me.   And building walls doesn't count.

[28Orot]

Quite the contrary. It shows a strong woman who didn't let her life to be overtaken by her husband's dick. I'm not a fan of Hillary the politician, but how she managed to live through all the humiliation and keep the family together, that's not shameful – it's inspiring.

Sides with? Check your facts, the reality is much more complicated, as is everything in that sad corner of the world.

A very strong woman she had been of course she will not let her husband's private parts to dominate her march to the white house.
As for carter, save it, nothing can exonerate him from siding with the enemies of freedom and tolerance.

[Gurn Blanston]

Just so that she would be president...
Puuuuuuuulize don't make a saint out of her  0:)

Well, if your wife played around, what would you do? Divorce her? Or have her stoned? Or would you live up to your end of the deal, even if you came out the loser. You have no idea what her motives were, you presume much.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well, you aren't talking about me then. I object to Trump based on his stated political stands. The many character flaws are of no consequence to me.

My own congressman (NY 2, Republican Pete King):
"@RepPeteKing on Trump: I don't accept that he's a racist... what he said last week was racist."

Can one say racist things without being a racist? Can you dissociate the "political stands" - whether building the wall, excluding Muslims, or criticizing the judge as Mexican - from the character flaws? And are all character flaws equal? Granted, Hillary has her share, including her strident personality and perhaps bizarre refusal to separate from or divorce Bill after the Lewinsky scandal, but are all character flaws of equal weight?

Even David Brooks states today in the NY Times: "Trump's personality is pathological. It is driven by deep inner compulsions that defy friendly advice, political interest and common sense.

"It's useful to go back and read the Trump profiles in Vanity Fair and other places from the 1980s and 1990s. He has always behaved exactly as he does now: the constant flow of insults, the endless bragging, the casual cruelty, the need to destroy allies and hog the spotlight. . . .  [Such narcissists] hunger for a never-ending supply of admiration from outside. They act at all times like they are performing before a crowd and cannot rest unless they are in the spotlight.

"To make decisions, these narcissists create a rigid set of external standards, often based around admiration and contempt. Their valuing criteria are based on simple division — winners and losers, victory or humiliation. They are preoccupied with luxury, appearance or anything that signals wealth, beauty, power and success. They take Christian, Jewish and Muslim values — based on humility, charity and love — and they invert them.

"Incapable of understanding themselves, they are also incapable of having empathy for others. They simply don't know what it feels like to put themselves in another's shoes. Other people are simply to be put to use as suppliers of admiration or as victims to be crushed as part of some dominance display."

If all this is correct, do you think such a deep-seated array of character flaws will have no bearing on Trump's performance in the White House and the political stands he makes?

[Gurn Blanston]

My own congressman (NY 2, Republican Pete King):
"@RepPeteKing on Trump: I don't accept that he's a racist... what he said last week was racist."

Can one say racist things without being a racist? Can you dissociate the "political stands" - whether building the wall, excluding Muslims, or criticizing the judge as Mexican - from the character flaws? And are all character flaws equal? Granted, Hillary has her share, including her strident personality and perhaps bizarre refusal to separate from or divorce Bill after the Lewinsky scandal, but are all character flaws of equal weight?

Even David Brooks states today in the NY Times: "Trump's personality is pathological. It is driven by deep inner compulsions that defy friendly advice, political interest and common sense.

"It's useful to go back and read the Trump profiles in Vanity Fair and other places from the 1980s and 1990s. He has always behaved exactly as he does now: the constant flow of insults, the endless bragging, the casual cruelty, the need to destroy allies and hog the spotlight. . . .  [Such narcissists] hunger for a never-ending supply of admiration from outside. They act at all times like they are performing before a crowd and cannot rest unless they are in the spotlight.

"To make decisions, these narcissists create a rigid set of external standards, often based around admiration and contempt. Their valuing criteria are based on simple division — winners and losers, victory or humiliation. They are preoccupied with luxury, appearance or anything that signals wealth, beauty, power and success. They take Christian, Jewish and Muslim values — based on humility, charity and love — and they invert them.

"Incapable of understanding themselves, they are also incapable of having empathy for others. They simply don't know what it feels like to put themselves in another's shoes. Other people are simply to be put to use as suppliers of admiration or as victims to be crushed as part of some dominance display."

If all this is correct, do you think such a deep-seated array of character flaws will have no bearing on Trump's performance in the White House and the political stands he makes?

No, I don't think that at all. I think it would be just a matter of time before he exploded like Mr. Creosote. But I am wanting to base my vote on something more than my instinctual revulsion for his character. There are plenty of people I don't like who can still do a hell of a job at something. My liking or not liking them or admiring their personality defects is not what governs their competence. If he was able to lay out a solid, positive plan for the country and had a reasonable expectation of implementing it, then I really wouldn't give two shits whether I liked him or not.

[28Orot]

My own congressman (NY 2, Republican Pete King):
"@RepPeteKing on Trump: I don't accept that he's a racist... what he said last week was racist."

Can one say racist things without being a racist? Can you dissociate the "political stands" - whether building the wall, excluding Muslims, or criticizing the judge as Mexican - from the character flaws? And are all character flaws equal? Granted, Hillary has her share, including her strident personality and perhaps bizarre refusal to separate from or divorce Bill after the Lewinsky scandal, but are all character flaws of equal weight?

Even David Brooks states today in the NY Times: "Trump's personality is pathological. It is driven by deep inner compulsions that defy friendly advice, political interest and common sense.

"It's useful to go back and read the Trump profiles in Vanity Fair and other places from the 1980s and 1990s. He has always behaved exactly as he does now: the constant flow of insults, the endless bragging, the casual cruelty, the need to destroy allies and hog the spotlight. . . .  [Such narcissists] hunger for a never-ending supply of admiration from outside. They act at all times like they are performing before a crowd and cannot rest unless they are in the spotlight.

"To make decisions, these narcissists create a rigid set of external standards, often based around admiration and contempt. Their valuing criteria are based on simple division — winners and losers, victory or humiliation. They are preoccupied with luxury, appearance or anything that signals wealth, beauty, power and success. They take Christian, Jewish and Muslim values — based on humility, charity and love — and they invert them.

"Incapable of understanding themselves, they are also incapable of having empathy for others. They simply don't know what it feels like to put themselves in another's shoes. Other people are simply to be put to use as suppliers of admiration or as victims to be crushed as part of some dominance display."

If all this is correct, do you think such a deep-seated array of character flaws will have no bearing on Trump's performance in the White House and the political stands he makes?

The democratic liberal establishment in its essence is racist and anti semitic. It has been so with its megalomaniacal affinity with all the enemies of Israel, and the United States for that matter. Its race bating, and taking advantage of the Blacks by constantly instigating problems that are not even there, like the shooting of Brown etc...

They are the most racist and vicious individuals, blaming all the ills on the rich and the fortunate. Barring free speech of people like Ben Shapiro and Alen Dershowitz. For example The Professor was not let inside any of the Norwegian universities because he is pro Israel, even though he is a democrat. In Scandinavia the very kind of 'progressive regimes' that hillary and bernie try to emulate those who have favorable views on Israel are shut out, and thought of giving a right winger to speak his mind is a persona non grata, they are the true fascists not Trump. Donald Trump is a baboon, but he is not a racist, the democrats and the liberals and their progressive handlers are the true racist, anti semitic bigots of our day.

Sad but True.