Mr. Trump does little explaining. Perhaps he is not able to explain something intellectually or using a cognitive capability. Perhaps he surmises that he doesn't have to explain because his is an "in charge" personality. While I'm pleased the he bullied the bullies from the very beginning of his campaign, I am not pleased he has shown nothing but arrogance and bluster. Given the options, he sits low. Not given the options, he sits low. His principles of strong borders and a better settlement for the US in economic terms are fine principles but there is insufficient evidence for me he can carry them out without major damage to through his "law and order" campaigns and newly emergent religious stance on reporductive rights. In the end, if trump were in power, he world rather try to blow the coat off a man or woman that gently warm the the room so a person would act willingly. And that is scary. Whether elected or not, his bluster, and his supporting party's support must be kept in human balance.It is disgusting that every time Donald Trump talks about Hillary Clinton, he calls her "Crooked Hillary." It sounds like a middle school bully who cannot talk without using a cuss word. He has already made his point that Hillary is dishonest; what is the point in repeating the 'crooked' word all the time? Trump is clearly not presidential, to say the least. However, the Republican Party is probably worse than him when it comes to policy matters. But, of course, the establishment Republican leaders are more politically correct and 'classy' than Trump. With the three-branch system of government in the USA, a President cannot be a dictator. So, a non-politician like Trump winning an election is unlikely to be anything like a revolution. After all, Trump is a very rich man, who is unlikely to understand the struggling life of the common citizen.
It is disgusting that every time Donald Trump talks about Hillary Clinton, he calls her "Crooked Hillary." It sounds like a middle school bully who cannot talk without using a cuss word. He has already made his point that Hillary is dishonest; what is the point in repeating the 'crooked' word all the time? Trump is clearly not presidential, to say the least.Of course Donald isn't presidential. He's an ad man working The Method. Are you honest? How honest are you? How dishonest are you? How dishonest is Hillary? {They just say she is, they don't explain how or why she is.} How dishonest is Trump? {How much evidence is needed before his base promoter's contempt for honest dealing is recognized?} How many people has Clinton's Foundation helped? How many people has Trump's Foundation helped? How many people has Clinton screwed through creative use of bankruptcy and junk bonds? How many people has Trump screwed through creative use of bankruptcy and junk bonds?
How dishonest is Hillary? {They just say she is, they don't explain how or why she is.}The following is from a newspaper that is not hostile to Hillary Clinton: Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html?_r=0 The way I see it: It is a colossal dishonesty/shame when someone that claims to be a defender of human rights cozies up with forces that have no sense of respecting human rights. To be fair, Hillary Clinton is not the only dishonest party here. If the USA and much of the West were not dishonest with their talk of human rights, they would have kicked out Saudi Arabia from the United Nations instead of calling that country an ally.
How dishonest is Hillary? {They just say she is, they don't explain how or why she is.}The following is from a newspaper that is not hostile to Hillary Clinton: Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html?_r=0 The way I see it: It is a colossal dishonesty/shame when someone that claims to be a defender of human rights cozies up with forces that have no sense of respecting human rights. To be fair, Hillary Clinton is not the only dishonest party here. If the USA and much of the West were not dishonest with their talk of human rights, they would have kicked out Saudi Arabia from the United Nations instead of calling that country an ally. It's all ashes flowing down the river now, but I did read that article - and am puzzled where you find these high crimes and treasons you seem to be insinuating? Did you ever give a thought to all the work the Clinton Foundation has done? Or the taxes it paid and paper work it filled out? http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/ http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2016/6/23/what-the-heck-does-the-clinton-foundation-actually-do.html
How dishonest is Hillary? {They just say she is, they don't explain how or why she is.}The following is from a newspaper that is not hostile to Hillary Clinton: Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html?_r=0 The way I see it: It is a colossal dishonesty/shame when someone that claims to be a defender of human rights cozies up with forces that have no sense of respecting human rights. To be fair, Hillary Clinton is not the only dishonest party here. If the USA and much of the West were not dishonest with their talk of human rights, they would have kicked out Saudi Arabia from the United Nations instead of calling that country an ally. It's all ashes flowing down the river now, but I did read that article - and am puzzled where you find these high crimes and treasons you seem to be insinuating? Did you ever give a thought to all the work the Clinton Foundation has done? Or the taxes it paid and paper work it filled out? http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/ http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2016/6/23/what-the-heck-does-the-clinton-foundation-actually-do.html The following is from that New York Times article: "The Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the State Department — before, during and after Mrs. Clinton’s time as secretary — criticized for their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues. The countries include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Brunei and Algeria. Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor. The kingdom gave between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation." The New York Times article was mild when the writer mentioned "sex discrimination and other human-rights issues." Saudi Arabia treats women no better than object/dirt; and they have been funding Islamic schools in many parts of the world to take the human civilization backward toward the 7th century.
The following is from that New York Times article: "The Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the State Department — before, during and after Mrs. Clinton’s time as secretary — criticized for their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues. The countries include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Brunei and Algeria. Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor. The kingdom gave between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation." The New York Times article was mild when the writer mentioned "sex discrimination and other human-rights issues." Saudi Arabia treats women no better than object/dirt; and they have been funding Islamic schools in many parts of the world to take the human civilization backward toward the 7th century.I read that. So where are the high crimes and treason here. Please explain. Those aren't nice countries but we've helped make them what they are and we've been doing business with them plenty. Incidentally sex discrimination and other human-rights issue happen quite a bit in this country and many others other's too. Again, do you have anything of real substance?
The following is from that New York Times article: "The Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the State Department — before, during and after Mrs. Clinton’s time as secretary — criticized for their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues. The countries include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Brunei and Algeria. Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor. The kingdom gave between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation." The New York Times article was mild when the writer mentioned "sex discrimination and other human-rights issues." Saudi Arabia treats women no better than object/dirt; and they have been funding Islamic schools in many parts of the world to take the human civilization backward toward the 7th century.I read that. So where are the high crimes and treason here. Please explain. Those aren't nice countries but we've helped make them what they are and we've been doing business with them plenty. Incidentally sex discrimination and other human-rights issue happen quite a bit in this country and many others other's too. Again, do you have anything of real substance? I did not talk about any high crime or treason. I talked about dishonesty. I think all genuine and conscious humanists would object when they see someone that claims to be a defender of human rights befriends the forces that have no sense of respecting human rights. 'Sex discrimination and other human-rights issue happen quite a bit in this country and many others other's too' is a poor defense/apology for the gross violations of human rights that happen in most Muslim-majority countries, including Saudi Arabia. On a related thought: The US motto of 'In God We Trust' is no reason to allow non-Christian religious fanaticisms also in this country. After all, we as humanists want to remove that original Judeo-Christian motto from the business of the state. We are not yet able to be perfect there is no reason to support/allow importing other kinds of imperfections to this country.
In August 2016, when I wrote this article involving the theatrical of flashing the US Constitution in the Democratic Party Convention by a Sharia law defender, I knew that this irresponsibility of the Democratic Party would backfire. However, I still thought that Hillary Clinton would win the presidential election by a landslide, as Donald Trump was too unpresidential. I am glad now that Sam Harris thinks that the Democratic Party dishonesty involving Islamic fanaticism and terrorism in the world played a significant role in the defeat of Hillary Clinton.
Sam Harris Answers Why TRUMP Won
Trump won for two reasons: Our electoral system is severely flawed and sixty million people in this country don’t have the thinking skills to recognize a lying mentally ill candidate. My brother, who is otherwise very intelligent, is in the late stages of terminal cancer and has insurance only because of Obamacare, yet he voted for Trump because he swallowed the lies Fox News and Breitbart spread. Now he’s worried about losing his insurance coverage and frustrated because his doctor has him on opioids for pain when he’d rather try CBD. He voted against his own best interests, as did tens of millions of other Americans. No amount of trying to blame the Democratic Party is going to change the underlying truth that most people make decisions out of fear and emotion instead of rational analysis.
In August 2016, when I wrote this article involving the theatrical of flashing the US Constitution in the Democratic Party Convention by a Sharia law defender, I knew that this irresponsibility of the Democratic Party would backfire. However, I still thought that Hillary Clinton would win the presidential election by a landslide, as Donald Trump was too unpresidential. I am glad now that Sam Harris thinks that the Democratic Party dishonesty involving Islamic fanaticism and terrorism in the world played a significant role in the defeat of Hillary Clinton. Sam Harris Answers Why TRUMP Won https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA_AxTzBBvI&feature=shareOh yeah. The Democratic party has become a farce. Faced with the fact that they could no longer conceal that they were just as beholden to corporate masters and their bribes as were the Republicans, they embarked on a campaign to highlight identity politics and wedge issues. Nobody has to do any serious research or digging to see why Trump won. It's basic politics 101. I don't need this video of another wonk on the talk circuit to explain why Trump won. Although I gather that this Harris fellow is hitching his anti-islam wagon to the explanation. That's a small part...
Trump won for two reasons: Our electoral system is severely flawed and sixty million people in this country don't have the thinking skills to recognize a lying mentally ill candidate. My brother, who is otherwise very intelligent, is in the late stages of terminal cancer and has insurance only because of Obamacare, yet he voted for Trump because he swallowed the lies Fox News and Breitbart spread. Now he's worried about losing his insurance coverage and frustrated because his doctor has him on opioids for pain when he'd rather try CBD. He voted against his own best interests, as did tens of millions of other Americans. No amount of trying to blame the Democratic Party is going to change the underlying truth that most people make decisions out of fear and emotion instead of rational analysis.I also think that a lot of people, if not most people, vote out of fear and emotion instead of rational analysis. As for help for the poor and lower middle class people in this country, I believe the Democratic Party has been better than the Republican Party over as long as I have followed politics in the USA (~30 years). But, the Democratic Party leaders, including Hillary Clinton, surely have been dishonest and irresponsible vis-à-vis tolerating, and probably unintentionally promoting, Islamic fanaticism in the world.