you realize how self contradictory this paragraph is? Trump's not going to loose because he's politically incorrect. That's why he succeeded. Trumps going to lose because when you pull back the curtain of his facade there is nothing. Zero zip.
That's pretty much what I meant, I just didn't finish the thought all the way through (and I'll admit it wasn't well written either!). Trump has success because he was politically incorrect. Trump lost the race, which could have been his for the taking, because he's practically mentally retarded, or perhaps something like an idiot savant with a bizarre form of Tourette Syndrome. Imagine if he had been able to talk coherently without a script and shut up when it was wise to do so, and having said some of the things he said as considered statements instead of accidental diarrhea of the mouth. He'd have mopped up on Clinton, because people are so sick of business as usual.
Has Hillary made excuses for her husband? No. Do these attacks reek of the sexist trope of blaming of the woman whose husband strays? Yes
She is still married to the man, after a couple of certain affairs and a number of accusations of wrong doing on her part as well, which seem to have an awful lot of meat to them, whether they have been proved or not. They honestly remind me of the presidential couple in House of Cards, as has been mentioned. My personal feeling on this isn't related to a sexist trope. I'm actually pretty liberal when it comes to relationships (it's part of my "liberal" side when I talk about being socially liberal and economically conservative, something either party can not be, wholly, but I try to be). Rather, I feel it is more a demonstration of how she, herself is, which is "tal para cual" with her husband. She does certain things (allegedly") to make sure she is successful. Or that her husband was. In her husband's case, if those particular allegations are to be believed, she threatened "bimbos" to keep silent [and does it matter if the allegations against WC were true and she was just trying to make sure it didn't affect his run for presidency? Is that how people are supposed to go about fixing a problem, by threatening people?], accepting how her husband treated women, while she was a fighter for women's rights. A fighter for women's rights should have a good image for that, I'd think (any example for any group should, what I'm saying isn't sexist).
And that word "alleged". This is a presidential election, not a legal trial which will end in prison time if found guilty. My
feelings are that there is a lot of truth behind all of the allegations. Not just her acceptance of her husband's wayward ways while claiming to be a supporter and example for women everywhere. That's all I, personally, need to feel to make me feel that she is corrupt and mean, and is not even necessarily strong in the ideal department. Not innocent until proven guilty in elections. Weight the evidence, even circumstantial, and make a decision based on your gut instincts. Maybe not fair, but since we can't read minds very necessary.
People don't know that he's an idiot. Some people (idiots) that think he's a genius. Here's the thing, people are stupid and ignorant. People hate the status quo but willfully ignore the fact that the US status quo is one of the best in the world and that "burn down the system" is most likely going to end up in a place much worse than where we were before, just look at the majority of other countries (like our home here) where the people would kill to have the institutions that the US does.
Yes, I agree that things are better in the US than many, many other places in the world. Yet, how long will the US continue to better than many other status quos in the world?
I can't help but compare how life in the States was when I was a kid, a teenager, a young adult as a laborer and an office worker, an older adult as a businessman, and now a bit-more-than-middle-aged man looking back at what my father had to deal with compared to what I have to deal with. I'm not talking any kind of Golden Age. I'm talking about styles of life for a lot of people, seeming to me to go steadily down instead of up in the last 20-30 years. My father always thought that since his parent's time (starting say a decade or two into the 20th century) things had gone up for people, in general. I don't see it now. I can't even go into all the things I've seen be harder and more complicated for my kids than they were for me.
Republicans blame it on the Democrats. Democrats blame it on the Republicans. I blame it on the status quo. It's both, and more.
You characterize a large shift in the status quo as burning down the system, which certainly makes such a change sound dismal indeed.
Changing the status quo is not easy. It has a huge amount of inertia. Trump hit it pretty hard and didn't have as much effect on it as I, personally, would have liked. But he hasn't torn anything down. Even if he's elected president, it would largely be an aberration which at worst would have knocked the compass of the status quo off by a degree or two. If something else doesn't come along to back up his strike, it will not make any difference in the long run. But maybe later he would have freed up another person, with a little more intelligence, to take another run at the status quo and turn things a bit better. There is no actual N, S, E or W on the compass of status quo, it's multidimensional. It just needs to be nudged.
Incremental changes due to inertia. Not tearing things down, I think.
</p>Dude, that's not how nuclear war works! If it happens, it won't be with consent, tacit or otherwise, of the people. I don't think it's likely to happen under president Trump but, given the dire outcome, I think it is a risk we can't afford to take. Trump is unstable. He doesn't think anything through. He can't.
Well, I don't agree with you on this. I think Clinton is more likely to put us into a situation where we have a major war, or worse, than Trump is to light off a nuke. As far as approval of the people, I mean that enough people would have to be feel sufficiently threatened that people throughout the line of people needed to actually launch or drop a nuke, between Trump and that event, would allow it to happen. I have a lot of faith in people - I don't think everyone is "stupid and ignorant" and I do think a lot of people who serve in the military (and who would be involved in such an operation) are mostly honorable and patriotic humans, not blind robots who will do anyone's bidding just because he happens to be their boss. I believe there are definite limits as to how far such people will go for someone they don't respect, or in a situation that they don't believe warrants what is happening.
I don't believe the US is similar to Nazi Germany these days, as many problems as we do indeed have, which is almost what you seem to suggest and what I would think would be required for Trump to successfully light off a nuke.
Much easier to get into a war and kill a bunch of people like that, as Bush showed us.
