There are such comparison matrices all over the web. Note that they themselves carry many assumptions (even when they are not blatantly biased), and ignore all holistic considerations, like priorities or coherence.
Never-the-less Jacques I like Wikipedia, and I like what TimDer is doing.
To Samuel, (original poster) one of Mr. Trump's positions that strongly appeals to people is economic nationalism. He says NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) enabled and enables many American jobs to be lost to Mexico. Does this seem right from your Mexican perspective?
To Samuel, (original poster) one of Mr. Trump's positions that strongly appeals to people is economic nationalism. He says NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) enabled and enables many American jobs to be lost to Mexico. Does this seem right from your Mexican perspective?
#31 are you referring to my post #26?
This has nothing to do with holistic views and coherence, but indeed with priorities.
My key problems with Trump, amongst others:
Net Neutrality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Net_neutrality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Technology_and_net_neutrality
Taxes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Fiscal_policy_and_taxation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Taxes.2C_spending.2C_and_budget
Minimum Wage
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Minimum_wage
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Minimum_wage
Climate Change
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Climate_change_and_renewable_energy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Climate_change_and_pollution
Clinton wants to do what i would want politics to do: Take more from the rich, raise minimum wage per hour, protect the environment, preserve net neutrality (and some things more). And she is clear about it.
Trump wants to do what i would _not_ want politics to do: Take less from the rich, dont raise minimum wage per hour, dont protect the environment, dont preserve net neutrality (and some things more). And about a lot of other things he seems just to say what is currently in his head. This is not enough safety for me.
This has nothing to do with holistic views and coherence, but indeed with priorities.
My key problems with Trump, amongst others:
Net Neutrality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Net_neutrality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Technology_and_net_neutrality
Taxes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Fiscal_policy_and_taxation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Taxes.2C_spending.2C_and_budget
Minimum Wage
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Minimum_wage
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Minimum_wage
Climate Change
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Climate_change_and_renewable_energy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Climate_change_and_pollution
Clinton wants to do what i would want politics to do: Take more from the rich, raise minimum wage per hour, protect the environment, preserve net neutrality (and some things more). And she is clear about it.
Trump wants to do what i would _not_ want politics to do: Take less from the rich, dont raise minimum wage per hour, dont protect the environment, dont preserve net neutrality (and some things more). And about a lot of other things he seems just to say what is currently in his head. This is not enough safety for me.
@TimDerTurm - The problem with this analysis is that politicians don't necessarily tell the truth about their positions. Our current president, whom I voted for, ran on a policy of rolling back many of the senseless wars the United States was engaged in along with our aggression in the Mideast. Once in office he ended up starting several new conflicts and bombing more countries, mostly in the mideast, than any president has since World War 2. He made a solemn pledge, in 2008 to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011. I could list these sort of things to no end.
Our democratic candidate, Clinton, is stating many things but I think this video is very telling: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4 She vividly recalls a scenario that paints her acting bravely under fire. She seemed to have forgotten that scenario she was describing was recorded. Everything she said was a complete and unadulterated lie said with the most sincere and believing expression possible. She also has a lengthy record of flip flopping between sides of an issue as one side becomes more politically favorable - anti-gay to pro-gay, pro-universal healthcare to anti-universal healthcare, pro-tpp to anti-tpp, and so on. People can and should evolve their positions over time. But the fact her positions change erratically and seem guided by no particular ethical or moral compass other than what's trending in the polls at the moment really makes me believe that she's the sort of person that will say anything to get what she wants. In private correspondence leaked by Wikileaks, her top aid also referred to her as "frequently confused." That's perhaps a low blow but it's no less disconcerting.
This isn't to say I'm in support of Trump. I'm not looking forward to starting the Red Scare, 2016 version. His views on climate and especially torture are also nothing short of egregious. However, at the same time I am intrigued by the possibility of upsetting the political status quo. All of these career politicians are career liars. I'm not suggesting that Trump is honest, but I do know that he's not one of them and perhaps having somebody that's outside of the establishment is what it would take to start shaking up our dysfunctional two party system to the point that we might actually start getting real people into office again.
I just don't know. Perhaps I'll just sit this election out.
Our democratic candidate, Clinton, is stating many things but I think this video is very telling: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4 She vividly recalls a scenario that paints her acting bravely under fire. She seemed to have forgotten that scenario she was describing was recorded. Everything she said was a complete and unadulterated lie said with the most sincere and believing expression possible. She also has a lengthy record of flip flopping between sides of an issue as one side becomes more politically favorable - anti-gay to pro-gay, pro-universal healthcare to anti-universal healthcare, pro-tpp to anti-tpp, and so on. People can and should evolve their positions over time. But the fact her positions change erratically and seem guided by no particular ethical or moral compass other than what's trending in the polls at the moment really makes me believe that she's the sort of person that will say anything to get what she wants. In private correspondence leaked by Wikileaks, her top aid also referred to her as "frequently confused." That's perhaps a low blow but it's no less disconcerting.
This isn't to say I'm in support of Trump. I'm not looking forward to starting the Red Scare, 2016 version. His views on climate and especially torture are also nothing short of egregious. However, at the same time I am intrigued by the possibility of upsetting the political status quo. All of these career politicians are career liars. I'm not suggesting that Trump is honest, but I do know that he's not one of them and perhaps having somebody that's outside of the establishment is what it would take to start shaking up our dysfunctional two party system to the point that we might actually start getting real people into office again.
I just don't know. Perhaps I'll just sit this election out.
I just realized that in my last post my comment about Obama solemnly pledging to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011 might not make sense as this is more of an international crowd. In the US the minimum wage is $7.25, where it has been since 2009. And the reason it was raised up to $7.25 in 2009 because of a bill passed in 2007 before Obama had come into office. When Obama came into office his party controlled all law-making branches of the government.
@OhNoMyPants that is interesting, but in the end, doesnt it count how they make politics tomorrow and not what they said and did in a video a while ago?
I agree that Clinton is not an angel, but Trump also isnt. These are politicans.
The people which critizise Clinton rarely do critzise concrete ideas and visions of her, instead they say, "Look what she said here, look how she behaved there" To me that is not so relevant. And is it relevant eg. for the american economy how clinton has sent her mails?
Indeed some people critizising Trump do the same. But there are also a lot of people, often Experts who critizise his ideas and say, 'that idea is nonsense'.
That is the difference. Clintons ideas may not be liked or even hated, but some of Trumps ideas are categorized as simply undoable. This indicates that Clinton knows better.
I agree that Clinton is not an angel, but Trump also isnt. These are politicans.
The people which critizise Clinton rarely do critzise concrete ideas and visions of her, instead they say, "Look what she said here, look how she behaved there" To me that is not so relevant. And is it relevant eg. for the american economy how clinton has sent her mails?
Indeed some people critizising Trump do the same. But there are also a lot of people, often Experts who critizise his ideas and say, 'that idea is nonsense'.
That is the difference. Clintons ideas may not be liked or even hated, but some of Trumps ideas are categorized as simply undoable. This indicates that Clinton knows better.
TimDer you are from Germany right. it's nice seeing your arguments. They are the rational, dispassionate arguments, but in this country many people are passionately fed-up with politicians. From the left, people say: politicians say one thing and do another; the economy is rigged to help the rich and nobody else, and from the right they say the same thing. Clinton embodies that existing dissatisfaction with politics and politicians. Trump represents something different, but at times that difference seems, I think as you have said, undo-able and uninformed.
@TimDerTurm - What I'm getting at is that you can't really take what a career politician in the US says to be indicative of how she's going to behave once in office. In the US the public has no means of holding politicians accountable or reprimanding them other than a vote every 4-6 years.
Basically we have a pattern that has been occurring for decades. We elect a politician from party A who says exactly what everybody wants to hear. Once in office they forget all of their promises and instead mostly just work to benefit corporations and wealthy special interests - and generally use the mideast as a playground for destroying other countries, destroying the United States' reputation, killing and injuring millions of innocents in the Mideast, and blowing trillions of taxpayer dollars. After 4 years they tend to get elected again thanks to certain nuances of the US election system. Then we have another 4 years of them failing to do anything except exactly what they did during the first term.
So now we have another election. Supporters from party A are mostly disgruntled and supporters of party B are sitting there yelling, "Told you so!" So we have another election and party B wins. The problem is their candidate does the EXACT same thing. And we repeat the process and have another election where the process repeats again and again.
Hillary is a part of this system. For instance she was one of the louder voices for war in Iraq. When deciding to backpedal 7 years later (because she decided to try to run for presidency and suddenly risked being held accountable) her claim was that 'When voting and lobbying for an invasion of Iraq - I thought Bush would give the UN more time before invading.' You don't vote for an invasion if you don't want an invasion.
So I can tell you with a pretty good degree of certainty what Hillary will do once in office. I cannot tell you what Trump will do. I do not think Trump will be a good president, and I agree many of his ideas are ridiculous but on the other hand as we iterate from A->B->A->B perhaps adding in a C is what's needed to fix things, even if it fixes them only by completely derailing them.
Basically we have a pattern that has been occurring for decades. We elect a politician from party A who says exactly what everybody wants to hear. Once in office they forget all of their promises and instead mostly just work to benefit corporations and wealthy special interests - and generally use the mideast as a playground for destroying other countries, destroying the United States' reputation, killing and injuring millions of innocents in the Mideast, and blowing trillions of taxpayer dollars. After 4 years they tend to get elected again thanks to certain nuances of the US election system. Then we have another 4 years of them failing to do anything except exactly what they did during the first term.
So now we have another election. Supporters from party A are mostly disgruntled and supporters of party B are sitting there yelling, "Told you so!" So we have another election and party B wins. The problem is their candidate does the EXACT same thing. And we repeat the process and have another election where the process repeats again and again.
Hillary is a part of this system. For instance she was one of the louder voices for war in Iraq. When deciding to backpedal 7 years later (because she decided to try to run for presidency and suddenly risked being held accountable) her claim was that 'When voting and lobbying for an invasion of Iraq - I thought Bush would give the UN more time before invading.' You don't vote for an invasion if you don't want an invasion.
So I can tell you with a pretty good degree of certainty what Hillary will do once in office. I cannot tell you what Trump will do. I do not think Trump will be a good president, and I agree many of his ideas are ridiculous but on the other hand as we iterate from A->B->A->B perhaps adding in a C is what's needed to fix things, even if it fixes them only by completely derailing them.
Ldog11 #32
In Mexico we feel that Nafta was good for the businessman and screwed the little people. We feel it is biased toward the US, but of course DJT will say anything that will make him popular and voted into office. As one person pointed out, one thing is what you say to get the votes, another thing is what you will actually do once you are sittin in the white house...
In Mexico we feel that Nafta was good for the businessman and screwed the little people. We feel it is biased toward the US, but of course DJT will say anything that will make him popular and voted into office. As one person pointed out, one thing is what you say to get the votes, another thing is what you will actually do once you are sittin in the white house...
#36 #38 great descriptive posts.
I believe that is worldwide democracy since it's exactly the same in my country and probably many others, if not lall of them.
one detail, the sequence is more frequently A-A-B-B-A-A-B-B than A-B-A-B, because of wars.
concerning chess & politics, you're right, playing trump is like bluring the position and let's the better win. it depends of your style.
concerning trump & system, I don't believe a man outside the system will be willing to change a system that promoted him as president. he will integrate the system and use it for himself. Therefore, if ever if he does what he says, after him, a new lyar will replace him from party A or B.
Don't expect trump to break the A-B-B-A song.
concerning what we should do to break the alternative-representative-democratic sequence is help make the people choose, not corrupted lyars.
I believe that is worldwide democracy since it's exactly the same in my country and probably many others, if not lall of them.
one detail, the sequence is more frequently A-A-B-B-A-A-B-B than A-B-A-B, because of wars.
concerning chess & politics, you're right, playing trump is like bluring the position and let's the better win. it depends of your style.
concerning trump & system, I don't believe a man outside the system will be willing to change a system that promoted him as president. he will integrate the system and use it for himself. Therefore, if ever if he does what he says, after him, a new lyar will replace him from party A or B.
Don't expect trump to break the A-B-B-A song.
concerning what we should do to break the alternative-representative-democratic sequence is help make the people choose, not corrupted lyars.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.