Hey, there! Log in / Register
Even in Copley Square, Trump has supporters
By adamg on Tue, 08/16/2016 - 1:00pm
This Dedham resident says he's been coming up to Copley Square since May to show his support for the Republican nominee. He says most people ignore him, some take his photo, some give him the finger and a few wave. As we spoke, a woman in her 30s came up to him with a big smile, exclaimed "I'm going to vote for Trump, too!" "Tell your husband!" he exhorted her, then started yelling to passersby, as the Opera Singer Guy continued to belt out a song about 40 feet away: "A million-dollar woman! We've got a million-dollar woman right here!"
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Lost Cause.
Looks like he's got a lot of free time on his hands. Not surprised. But hey you do you.
Yikes!
Yikes!
That guy!
I've seen him a lot on Route 1/Providence Hwy/VFW. The sign + flag combo is distinctive.
These Trumpeteers can't even do signs right.
Or chant right either. Their slogans are terrible. The obvious one here is "Trump 4-ever, Hillary Never!" It's even chant-able!
Saw a group of these lead-water drinkers on the 93 on-ramp in Neponset the other day. One genius had "If you have wisdom vote Trump" on his sign. How about "A Wise Man Votes Trump" (mostly because any woman voting Trump would never be described as wise) or even "If you are wise vote Trump" or "Wise Guys Vote Trump"
My boss is a Trump voter and he was stumbling over himself to make a racist joke this morning. THESE PEOPLE EVEN NEED HELP WITH RACISM. It's really effing sad how dumb they are....
HR
It's a thing … if the bossman is making racist jokes.
Diversity of opinions in a
Diversity of opinions in a democratic republic is a beautiful thing.
Any society without a marketplace of competing ideas, no matter how good or bad they may be, is stagnant.
Yup
Let them have their fun -- it's their right.
If I knew absolutely nothing about Trump I might support him too.
So are you saying
You know nothing about Hillary?
I know plenty
How about you list what you like about Trump so much without mentioning Clinton or democrats. If you think Trump is great, go ahead and tell us why.
I'm sure we could all use a good laugh on a Tuesday afternoon.
Chirp chirp
:)
FTFY
If I knew absolutely nothing
about TrumpI might support him too.Jon Snow, etc. etc.
It's unfortunate that our
It's unfortunate that our presidential voting system doesn't value a diversity of ideas in some states.
No reason to insult Kansas
No reason to insult Kansas like that.
Yep, which is why
It is disturbing to see dissenting opinions shut down at college campuses and gatherings everywhere lately.
The university environments are especially troubling to me, as college is where I learned to listen to and tolerate others. Because that happened, back then.
You, sir or ma'am, are an arm-waver
You, sir or ma'am, are an arm-waver. That's a person who, without reference to specifics or facts, declaims about how something awful is happening "everywhere lately". You might succeed in rousing up a chorus of grinding axes, but don't be terribly surprised if no one who's actually thought things through takes you seriously.
I feel your pain, man
I also remember my halcyon days back at ol' Strawman U. "There's two sides to every story," the professors would say, and then we'd talk about why it was morally equivalent to provide universal health care, or to deport everyone who had ever seen foot in a mosque. I passed my sophomore seminar, "Intolerance of intolerance is also intolerant," with flying colors, and went on to graduate summa cum laude with a thesis on why groupthink was bad and totally doesn't exist outside of the ivory tower. "GOP! AOK! Democrats! Also good!" was the cheer that went up on game days. We'd feud with Strawman State, just up the road, but their football team were just a bunch of Reaganites and guys wearing Che stickers on their helmets, so we always thumped 'em good.
Slow clap
Well-done.
Remember when Palin was popular?
Popular amongst Republicans at least. They defended her with all their might.
Then she lost (McCain was just a side show)
Slowly but surely, after one too many bizarre comments, even the most die hard republicans admitted she was nuts.
Trump fans. I see your immediate future.
Just Like The Heaven and Hell Guy near The Cask
Somebody, apparently without a day job, likes to live in a fantasy world while the rest of us go around and just live.
This guy is harmless, unlike the Hick Hop idiots I see out in the suburbs and exurbs, who seem really pissed that somewhere someone is getting to live their lives under the protection of the US Constitution, and not under their "Murica rules.
what is hick hop?
what is hick hop?
That Gawd Awful New Type of Country Music
Country music was horrible and has been since about 1978. It is now taken subtle hip hop beats and plastered it over with Jimmy Buffett meets America First lyrics. This means it is even worse.
I can't go to two restaurants at the beach near me any more because this have sex with my pick up truck / tip my hat to the soldiers (even though I didn't sign up) / punch a deer / knock back a brew / respect my mama / luv my girl / kill an A-Rab crap is played everywhere now.
I am going to keep Buffalo Tom, The Dogmatics, The Neighborhoods, The Blackjacks, The Outlets, Dino Jr., and The Cavedogs even though some of them are in their 50's and some have passed on retainer after I hit the lottery and have them burst into bars and play real music to kill the evil of country culture that permeates this area more and more.
Wow.
Throw in the Bags, Classic Ruins and the Lyres and I'll marry you.
ignore.
.
Unbelievable
That, sir, was a mighty fine takedown. I tip my hat.
I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but I still find it weird that country music even gets played in Massachusetts (except in a sort of musicologist/"let's explore American regional music" kind of way).
Then maybe
You need to get out of Suffolk County once in awhile.
Swing and a miss
I live in Franklin County, son. Surprise: songs about the stars and bars aren't traditional in these parts either.
Emmylou Harris, Dolly Parton, Johnny Cash?
I don't think liking any of these makes one an uneducated hick.
Ditto
Says this guy from Oklahoma
Did I say it did?
Pay attention to your attributions, son.
Seriously
Do you really believe Boston and MA is all leftist so called progressive Hillary fanboys? You really think Trump fans are unusual around here?
Yes, yes I do
No, not all of Massachusetts - I suspect Trump will do relatively well in Worcester County, but come on, Copley Square? Seriously? Do you even Boston, bro?
Unpopular but not uncommon
In the original anon poster's defense, Copley is filled with many tourists (or is that Cope-ly Square?) from all around the country (including people from Worcester County) who may support Trump......... jus' sayin.
I trek between Southie and Rozzie via Columbia Road weekly. There has been a Trump flag hanging out the window of an apartment that makes me worry about that person's safety, well-being, and awareness of surroundings.. I don't want to specify too closely where it is , but it's been there for months.
They walk amongst us
Earlier this summer I was walking up Babcock Street in Brookline (BROOKLINE!!!) and became aware of a thirtysomething man talking quite animatedly on his cell about the need for the listener to vote for Trump so we can build a wall and "keep these people out of our country". He veered onto one of the side streets, leading me to think he resides in the town of Kennedy, Dukakis and TLF.
That man behaves as if he is mentally ill
I'm not making a dumb crazy voter joke.
I know of a man in Brookline who matches your description and who behaves as if he needs medical help. I see him pretty regularly, always with the same seemingly-harmless schtick.
And I write all of this very conscious of Rep Pat Kennedy's plea to stop calling Trump crazy because it demeans those who are suffering from real mental health issues and need treatment, not ridicule.
There's a guy who acts rather similarly that I've seen around
our area of Somerville on afew occasions, and who goes around with his stuff in a big shopping cart. I wonder if he's homeless and/or mentally ill. Sometimes he acts and talks politely and decently, but other times he's become rather insulting. Unpredictable, imho. I think he's mentally ill and homeless, but who arm I to put labels on people.
My suspicion is...
...that there is an entire silent group of Trump voters who are saying nothing for fear of being branded bigots or whatever, quietly believing in the things Trump espouses. Living in the most liberal areas.
Which "things" would those be exactly?
Aside from slogans that can be grunted or slapped on a bumper sticker ("Build a wall!" "Make America Great Again!") what concrete policies has the guy set forth that folks can intelligently get behind? What do his supporters actually think he's going to DO? Build a wall--for real? Kick out all the Muslins? Start making his ugly-ass clothing line in Ohio instead of China? The guy is a bridge-seller par excellence.
You miss the point entirely...
Th post does not say that the "things" Trump espouses are good, bad, indifferent or worth believing in. It says there are people who agree with him and will vote for him but are keeping quiet about it for fear of being branded bigots, homophobes, racists, etc. They may well BE bigots, etc. But they are keeping quiet. The polls are not taking this group into consideration. They DO exist.
Prove it
Explain how "the polls" could systematically exclude such people?
I mean, are they too terrified to answer the phone? Refusing to answer pollster's questions?
I think you need to head over to the FAQs at fivethirtyeight.com and learn a few things about how polls are conducted.
Maybe something like this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
But what do I know, I'm not an expert on everything!
So what you're saying is
Sally and Swirly are proving the original anon's point.
(and yes, Swirly, you make an excellent point about how this guy is doing a good job sign holding down below.)
How are we proving that point, again?
Care to explain?
There is a difference between threatening violence because someone is different and expecting someone to rationally support their assertions about other "types" of people that justify limiting their rights using valid scientific, sociological, and legal arguments.
One is bullying, intimidation and threats. The other is simply an expectation of rational adult discourse instead of "I believe it so it has to be true" and "you're being MEAN because you expect me to be rational and that's the same as hating on me".
Sorry, but I expect adults old enough to vote to act like adults, not terrified children, when demanding that the rights of others be curtailed. I expect adults to not whine about persecution when called on to provide valid justification for their demands.
You haven't dealt with teenagers yet ... bwahahahaha!
Okay, you weren't quite
Until just then.
Look, I'm not going to defend Trump's core supporters, since there are a lot of bullies (IMHO), but there are obviously people for whom Trump's message that America is in decline, that the government is either tolerating or even set to reward people who have violated our immigration laws, that unfair trade deals have ruined our manufacturing section, and that looking to the various terrorist incidents in Europe in the name of Islam we need more scrutiny of people coming from the Muslim world resonates. I mean, he's been routinely polling at around 40% of the electorate. Not all of them are bad people.
That said, there is a certain level of intellectual bullying on the part of the left. Yes, in a rational world people can have calm discussions of issues, but just look back to when Adam posted something on transgendered persons. There was a lot of beating up on the views of people who simply feel that if you are born with a penis you are a male and if you are born with a vagina you are a female. Sure, if the Hub of the Universe was Colorado Springs or Montana, the Bizarro World Adam would be posting about seemingly odd Hilary Clinton supporters and people would be mocking the candidate for her lack of trustworthiness (amongst other things.) That wouldn't be right, either.
I give you credit. You post below the 100% right thing. The guy has a right to his views on the Presidential race, even though you 100% disagree with him. There's just been way too much screaming this year, and my fear is that it will only get worse.
But to the point, the claim would be that Trump supports are suffering, in essence, from the Bradley effect, in that they might be afraid of being judged by pollsters who ask who they are voting for. Apparently, this year computer polls, even those done via phone, have been more accurate than live interview polls.
Then you tell me
How are the intelligent, well-reasoned, people who have taken careful consideration and employed rigorous thought to today's issues and candidates supposed to interact with someone who hasn't given any thought, has reacted purely out of pseudo-self-interest to back a misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, con artist that is entirely unrepentantly devoid of detailed thought and whose statements from day to day contradict themselves?
For months, it was "that's not true, don't you see...", then it was "I already explained that to you last time, but you're ignoring the facts...", then it was "I don't understand how you can support that when days ago you said the opposite and you're not explaining yourself well enough for me to be able to get at the root of the problem...", then it was "oh come on, you're just saying that because you don't like her, which is fine, but don't make stuff up...", and now it's "are you fucking stupid?".
And now suddenly, in comes the supposed voice of reason to say "well, no wonder, you're being an intellectual bully!". Fuck you. You ever think that they're being a reticent, intentionally intellectually ignorant bully instead? That ever occur to you? That one side has *tried* to reason through it all and raise the bar for everyone but keeps getting poo flung in their face for their troubles and has decided it'd be better to burn a fireline to prevent the stupid from spreading any further?
All the thumbs. I want your
All the thumbs. I want your last graf on a t-shirt.
"Intellectually bullying" the
"Intellectually bullying" the willfully ignorant is more an observation of facts than an attack on a viewpoint.
How about
Asking yourself how you would react if people demeaned you because of who you support based on their feeling of moral and intellectual superiority.
I'm a Johnson guy. I've had both Clinton and Trump people (okay, anti-Trump and anti-Clinton) folk claim I'm wasting my vote and helping the other one win. Yet I can intellectualize why people are actually positively supporting Clinton and Trump.
Doesn't address the question
Trump supporters may have glommed onto him because they foolishly thought he had appeal for one reason or another. However he's since proven that whatever they found appealing is a lie. They still stay attached to him.
They have been confronted with this in simple, civil ways. They refuse to internalize it due to whatever reason. That reason is shown to be wrong in a kind civil way. They find another rationalization. No Trump supporter is backing him at this point without having been confronted with why their opinion of him is on unfounded bullshit. Yet they persist.
That's not rational. So the answer is no longer to treat them rationally or even kindly. They KNOW and don't care that it's all bullshit but they persist anyways.
It has reached a point where it's pointless to care what they think because what they think has no bearing on reality and the rest of us have to continue to exist in reality. If we rounded them up into FEMA camps, they'd still be wrong because reeducation requires prior education which they're lacking.
"Agree" with him on what exactly?
Again--the guy has set forth zero policies on how he'll accomplish his vague rah-rah goals. I agree completely that he's successfully tapping into discontent, anger, and yeah, sorry--a deep vein of racist, xenophobic nastiness. But as far as anything real to "believe?" I've yet to see it.
Projection much?
Just because Trump supporters are now legendary for beating down people not like them with the blessing of Trump himself ("I'll pay the legal bills") doesn't mean that other people act like they do.
But, given their fear of everything not them, I can see how they might imagine themselves into a terrified little hole. Meanwhile, this dude shows his support and nobody has yet bothered him.
Persecution complex
Like all evangelical thinkers, they have this enduring fantasy that the world is out to get them for their beliefs.
What they fear most: the world doesn't care, except when they try to legislate them.
Also an effective strategy
It also appears to be an effective derail strategy even if you don't believe in the fantasy. For example, behind the so-called "religious freedom" laws in so many states are, I believe, a number of cynical assholes who know perfectly well that their religion -- Christianity, the only religion whose adherents have argued is under some kind of existential threat -- in fact enjoys an unparalleled level of privilege and power in American society, and that a Christian's ability to practice their religion is in no way impinged upon by laws regulating public accommodations, among other things. Yet they continue to use the line of how the poor persecuted Christians are under attack in this country, because they know it works -- until enough people start pointing and laughing.
Don't be elitist...
....I'm sure there are some people from Revere who work or hang out in Copley....
Trump will do better outside
Trump will do better outside of the the 495 belt than he will inside of it, but he's still going to get crushed in MA. Sure, he'll carry some shithead deep Massachusetts towns, but he is going to be embarrassed here. Though it'll be more embarrassing when he loses Texas or Utah.
ahem
Hillary is no more a leftist than I am a billionaire. She's a "practical progressive" the way Bush was a "compassionate conservative." This election is the apocalypse and I am actively seeking convenience marriages in other countries.
Hillary is the best candidate
Hillary is the best candidate the Republicans have run in years :)
I was a registered Democrat for a really, really long time, but
I switched over to the Independent (or the Unenrolled, as it's called here in Somerville) back in 2008, because I decided that I couldn't stand voting for the lesser of two evils any longer. Therefore, I did not vote for either McCain or Obama. With this particular election, however, I feel that just because we're in a Blue States doesn't mean that we're especially safe. Most of the state turned Red and voted for Charlie Baker, and the majority of those votes were out in the 'burbs and the boonies, especially in the route I-495 area. They voted Charlie Baker in, because they don't depend on the T at all.
Back to the subject at hand: Back in 2008, during the POTUS Election, I wrote in my own ticket: A Bernie Sanders/Dennis Kucinich Ticket, rather than vote for either Obama or McCain.. In 2012, during the POTUS, I voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party, rather than vote for Obama or Romney.
Right now, unfortunately, although I'd planned to either vote for Jill Stein again, or write in Bernie Sanders for POTUS, I feel that there's far too much at stake during this POTUS Election year, so I will probably vote for Hillary Clinton despite my deep, deep reservations about her.
I get that, but...
I really doubt that there's any chance HRC won't win Massachusetts handily. She cleaned up in every major-ish city in the state, and I don't think the Bernie voters here would be all that likely to fall into the fabled Sanders-to-Trump category. It's worth keeping an eye on the polls, just to be sure, but a bunch of rich suburbanites voting for Chucking Farlie is one thing; I don't really think Trump will find that kind of support here.
For my part, I'll probably just write someone in. Stein is a goofball. Johnson too. Trump is chaotic evil. Clinton is lawful evil. My vote for president doesn't matter in this state, so I'm not going to bother making even the symbolic gesture of taking any of the candidates seriously.
Posted one hour earlier:
Posted one hour earlier: news that there's an unhealthy amount of lead in much of the local drinking water.
Coincidence?
I miss Qween Amor.
I miss Qween Amor.
Seeing an increasing number
Seeing an increasing number of pickup trucks driving around the greater Boston area with a trio of large flags flying off the back: Trump, Confederate and Tea Party... disheartening.
I'm calling bullshit
On that claim, confederate flags, ya ok.
Drive Morissey Blvd
Inbound on the morning commute. You'll see one of em. Every. Day.
I took photos and video.
I took photos and video. Would you like to see them? Adam, can I post a pic even tho I'm an anon?
You can, with a proviso
You have to first post them somewhere else (Flickr, imgur, whatever), then you can use the img or youtube tags to embed the photo here. Or if you want, you can e-mail me one of the images and I can post (not the video, though, I suspect it would not get through my e-mail server).
This is what democracy looks like
He's hurting nobody, his sign is respectful, and he has every right to do what he is doing to try to persuade people to vote for his favored candidate.
Not any different than all the sign holders at major intersections near election days.
And look at that big ol smile
And look at that big ol smile!
I found your post refreshing.
I found your post refreshing. The thing that makes me sick about this election is hearing and reading (here included) how people turn upon each other. People that vote Trump have every right to do so without being verbally assaulted. I am not a Trump voter, nor a Clinton voter. To me there is nothing to brag about voting for either one. But watching people insult others this election makes me turn it all off.
I am sure there are more neighbors and friends voting Trump but are afraid to say so, here in "tolerant" Massachusetts. And that pisses me off.
Yes, and as noted ...
I went up and talked to him (after he gave me that thumb's up), and was polite and he seemed to be in good spirits. Win, win all around, democracy is served, civility is maintained. We're not heathens, my good lady.
Spirited
I saw him by Legacy Place last night, and he was having a very spirited discussion with the SUV next to me. Couldn't quite tell if he was loudly agreeing or getting very angry with the driver, and the light changed before I could roll my window down to see.
This is going to be an enjoyable November.
I've been saying for years that the right wing media machine, talk radio Faux Newts et al have poisoned politics only to have Wingnut talk show host Charlie Sykes validate the obvious with these charming thoughts:
“We’ve basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers. There’s nobody. Let’s say that Donald Trump basically makes whatever you want to say, whatever claim he wants to make. And everybody knows it’s a falsehood, The big question of my audience, it is impossible for me to say that. By the way, you know it’s false. And they’ll say, Why? I saw it on Allen B. West. Or they’ll say, ‘I saw it on a Facebook page.’ And I’ll say, ‘The New York Times did a fact check.’ And they’ll say, Oh, that’s The New York Times. That’s bullshit. There’s got to be a reckoning on all this. We’ve created this monster. Look, I’m a conservative talk show host. All conservative talk show hosts have basically established their brand as being contrasted with the mainstream media. So we have spent 20 years demonizing the liberal mainstream media. And by the way, a lot has been justifiable. There is real bias. But, at a certain point you wake up and you realize you have destroyed the credibility of any credible outlet out there.”
Even Snopes is now considered
Even Snopes is now considered too liberal to be an honest broker.
Walked past him at lunch, he
Walked past him at lunch, he was being universally ignored by the people on the street. Someone honked which he took as an affirmative and announced, "Boston just turned Republican folks!" He seemed like he was hoping for people to get into with him, he had a smirk like a dad who enjoys farting in front of his kids.
Hmmm...
...given the candidate, I'd say it's more of a shart.
now you name me ONE DAD
You name me ONE dad to DOESN'T enjoy farting in front of his kids.
I can't believe anyone's voting for either of these two morons
I'd vote for Jill Stein before either of them - and plan to vote for Gary Johnson.
You don't get the government you want - you get the government you deserve.
#crookvcrackpot2016
Doesn't matter
if you vote for Stein or Johnson--you'll get Trump or Clinton.
Does matter
a) to me
and b) it won't be my fault when Hillary wins and we have 4 more years of gridlock or Trump wins and we have 4 years of chaos
I've voted for many people that lost the race. No regrets - I vote for the person I think can do the best job - and history has generally proven me right one way or the other.
I never meant
that it would not matter to you personally, only that the end result will be Trump or Clinton and we will all have to live with that.
But it's always fun to play the "what if" game.
If everyone
who thinks like you voted for a third party candidate their views align with the GOP and Dems would die a quick death.
I too will be voting 3rd party. The major parties need to see in real numbers the votes they are losing.
The RSVP to the reception
has two options. Chicken, and fish. In a pique of righteous rage, you can try writing in "steak" under the two checkboxes, but it's not gonna make a whole lot of difference.
A third-party vote this election is an explicit declaration that you trust the rest of the voting public to make the right choice. That's, uh, an interesting solution to the Kobayashi Maru, cadet.
Who's got the pique?
The statement is neutrally worded: I intend to vote for so-and-so because logical, rational reasons. You label this as "a pique of righteous rage". Who in this exchange is being an irrational and judgmental?
Seriously, you "if you vote for X YOU'RE ELECTING Y AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT" types need to get back on your medication. Sure, you can make a rational argument that a vote for a third-party candidate is unlikely to have any effect, but you're not doing that. You're projecting and name-calling and claiming motives for which you have no basis and condescending and generally acting like a bunch of raging assholes at every possible opportunity. You are welcome to your convictions, but that's not what this is about: it's about your judgment of other people, and your fearless resolution to ignore anything they might say about what they think or intend, because of course you know better. God forbid you should take the opportunity to learn something and examine your own assumptions.
While we're at it
the third party candidates this cycle are especially terrible. Gary Johnson is head-trauma crazy, and the big-L Libertarian Party in the US is a circus sideshow that has lost all sight of little-L libertarian principles. Jill Stein is an M.D. who is anti-vaccination, and the Green platform is less coherent than Trump's. If you're at the point where you're not going to vote for one of the big two, you might as well write in Markkk, or Mickey Mouse.
Head trauma crazy?
Explain. And if you want head trauma crazy - Trump is the clinical definition. Hillary is just a plain crook. Not saying Gary Johnson is my first choice of the 325 million Americans - he's just head and shoulders above the unaccomplished spineless jellyfish the Dems are offering and the certifiably insane narcissist the Republicans have put up.
As for chicken and fish - you can serve them. I don't have to eat them.
Can Johnson win? Not easy - but here is how it happens:
a) he gets into the debates (polling at 10 - needs 15 to get in - an endorsement from say a Romney which isn't out of the question probably gets him to 12 - maybe 13 - still needs another 2-3).
b) Johnson wins a handful of states depriving both major party candidates of 270 electoral votes (he is apparently already threatening that in 2 western states).
c) the current House of representatives then votes for president which assures one thing - Hillary is not president. Then it comes down to Republicans either holding their nose and voting for a crazy man with an R after his name or Johnson. 50-50 on which way that goes. (the senate picks the Vice President which means Pence gets that nod).
Crazy? Convoluted - absolutely. But crazier things have already happened in this election cycle so I wouldn't count it out just yet.
The key is if you vote for one of two candidates "because they can win" you are an idiot and get what you deserve (take your pick - gridlock v. Cuckoo's Nest). We the electorate are essentially a board picking a CEO. You vote for the person that can do the best job among the choices available. We have one loose cannon, one ethically challenged candidate that has demonstrated extraordinarily poor judgment time and again in positions of responsibility and a former governor with a decent track record (that doesn't support all the fringe stuff that the Libertarians do).
Johnson isn't my first pick of all Americans - he's just the best of the 3. And sadly has the least chance of winning.
I am not
I am not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton but I will be voting for her in November as of today. I do have a question though, I keep reading and hearing that Hillary Clinton is a crook. What exactly has she been convicted of that makes her a crook ? Or is it that she has been accused of being a crook and that is enough to in fact make her a crook ?
Just because you get away with it...
...doesn't mean you didn't commit a crime.
At the very best she is a highly unethical person. In my opinion (and even the opinion of some I know in law enforcement) she would certainly have stood trial and likely been convicted of several things had she not been the wife of the (ex)-President.
Whitewater
Futures trading
Removal of items from the White House
Email coverups
Conflict of interest violations
She skated - BARELY on a number of these on technicalities/"missing" evidence. Even if you don't think she's a crook - these and other issues show that despite the fact that she's a brilliant person (and I believe that), she has repeatedly shown horrible judgment (in addition to most of the above add her original health care plan, Iraq war, Benghazi and our foreign policy under her in general (Syria, Libya, Egypt, ISIS) - I'm sure others can add more.
With such a horrendous track record - why would anyone vote for her.
Don't get me wrong - 12-18 months ago I was going to vote for her - when I did my research on this stuff I realized she's a) not a good or remotely honest person and b) hasn't accomplished anything significant in 25 years of "public service" and c) shows tremendous lack of judgment illustrated by the above. And that's before you even touch politics.
* Searches Google: Define crime*
"crime
krīm/
noun
noun: crime; plural noun: crimes
an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law."
So sorry to put reason into your rant. Carry on.
#sorrynotsorry
Semantics
Are important
"an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law"
Note the word "may". It's there for a very specific reason. Due to government regulations I pay close attention to that word every day - and use it frequently in my writing. It is EXTREMELY important to keep me out of jail (or at least civil court) in almost everything I do.
Just because the government "may" not prosecute a case for a number of reasons (inadequate evidence, untrustworthy witnesses or a vaguely written law for example), does not mean a crime wasn't committed. In fact, the FBI concluded that in Hillary's email case a crime "may" have been committed, but due to the difficulty in proving "intent", no competent prosecutor would bring the case (now my question is how does anyone ever prove intent). This is how the Hillary gets away with stuff.
You may not think she's a crook. But there's no question she (and her husband who I think was actually a pretty good president), have highly dubious ethical standards. We don't need another Nixon in the White House.
Hasn't she
Hasn't she been investigated by the US congress many times over ? I would think a body with the resources of the US congress could have found something on her after all these years and investigations. I am not trying to sway a vote here, as I stated earlier I am not a huge fan of her's. I am voting against Trump more than for her (I know I could vote Stein or Johnson). I just think that as lbb stated she is good at being a politician and if she were a man I do doubt that he would have the "crooked" label in front of his name. The fact is that she has never even been indited for a crime and yet has the label of "Crooked" . You can speculate all you want on what she may or may not have done to earn that label but for me it is kind of tired. If she is a crook, show me evidence and I will agree.
P.S I do not totally disagree with your assessment of her judgement,but to me Trump is so bad that I will mark for "Upstanding" Hillary !! Lol
Actually once I believe
I think the only thing that she was investigated for by Congress was Benghazi - and I would agree - that was a bit of a witch hunt. I don't expect my secretary of state to be making those kinds of low level decisions (although, again, not a crime, but I think her judgment in handling the aftermath was horrendous).
She and Bill have been investigated by special prosecutors, the FBI and more - which makes you wonder - you don't see this happening to other people. I may not agree with Bernie's or Barack's politics - but they are ethical people and sincere in their ideals. Can't say either of those things about Hillary (I don't know if she knows what her ideals are other than she supports anything that will get her votes).
This is the thing I find interesting. For every person I find that will vote for Johnson - 3-4 are voting for either Hillary or Trump. Like you, most are not voting for their candidate as much as against the other. When I ask them how they could vote for either of them rather than Johnson, they say because Johnson can't win - which is the biggest knock they seem to have on him (the biggest knock I can find on him is he's a horrible public speaker and I have questions about a couple of his policies - like the impact of a VAT - but Congress can put a check on that like they will with Don and Hill's crazier ideas).
If all these people said I'm voting for the best candidate of the three - whether or not they could win - Johnson would literally take 50-60% of the vote. But he "can't win". So he'll get about 10%.
Now that's crazy.
Lazy shorthand
Probably most of it comes from Trump's childish name-calling ("Crooked Hillary"), but it's not as if "crook" hasn't been used time and again to refer to politicians who are perceived to be, let's say, overly guided by certain influences -- even if that influence is perfectly legal.
My opinion is that Hillary Clinton has worked very hard to get very good at a game that is technically legal but morally as crooked as they come. It's an unanswerable question whether a man with the same background would have attracted this scrutiny or that label: I don't think you can argue that she hasn't come in for an unusual degree of scrutiny over the course of her political career, and I think a good bit of that comes from sexist double standards, but at the same time I think we are at a point where certain things are coming to a head. Citizens United plus income inequality plus a number of other factors equals a public policy that really, no really, is not about the needs of ordinary Americans. Let that go on long enough, and the impact is deep enough and wide enough that it can no longer be ignored. And so, you get a lot of people sayubg "crook", even if they're talking about currently legal practices.
(if this is a subject of concern to you, you might want to visit http://represent.us - I like their take on things)
Amen, brother
Amen, brother. There are a number of factors that got us to this sorry state, but one that IMO looms large is the persistent, stubborn inability of the average American to imagine more than two choices, to pretty much anything that matters in life. A menu of fifty seven flavors of chicken wings, that we can deal with, but politics? It's chocolate or vanilla and if you want strawberry you can just move to France or something.
Most people can count beyond 2
I can certainly imagine more than 2 choices, but I am not naive enough to believe that change can happen by choosing a third party candidate in a national Presidential election. Change starts at the local level.
People who insist that their vote for a 3rd party candidate in the Presidential election tend to strike me as not particularly well-informed about the particulars of civics. And particularly in this election when there's so much at stake - because of circumstances in my life I've already been told by Trump supporters that they hope he wins and forces my family to leave the US on more than one occasion (and I am a US citizen by birth) - in this election, a voter choosing a 3rd party candidate takes their naivete to a level more akin to arrogance and privilege.
I actually have something to lose if Trump becomes President. I do not have the luxury of voting for anyone other than Hillary. I am firmly with her.
Speaking of people who insist that...
People who insist that they know why other people are voting as they are, without bothering to 1)ask and 2)listen to the answer, tend to strike me as proudly, willfully ignorant, and even less informed about the particulars of civics than those they are criticizing.
Try this next time:
1)Ask, using open and neutral language. If you say shit like, "Why are you stomping and pouting and having a tantrum with your third party vote for someone you know will never make it just because you trust ME to do the right thing?", then you fail at discourse and you should just admit you're not up to it.
2)Listen to the answer. Don't interrupt. Don't respond at all. Listen to ALL the answer. Don't say any, "But don't you think.." because if you do that, you just pretty much demonstrated that you didn't listen, and you were only waiting for the opportunity to pounce with your strawman.
3)Say "Thank you." No one owes you an answer, and given how rude people like you have been, you should be grateful if you get one.
4)Go away and think about the answer, by yourself.
You either want dialogue, or you don't. If you do, you have to ask for other points of view, and you have to listen to them. If all you want to do is make up stories about them that suit your world-view, that's just selfish ego gratification.
Yuck
This is gross. And I'm a certified asshole.
Cool story, bro
I see I struck a raw nerve with you, lbb. Maybe in one of your numerous posts on this thread you would like to use just one of them to explain the reasons you're supporting your candidate. And if you could also explain why you think the current electoral system will allow for a third party win, that would be just fantastic. Even better: tell me why your reaction was so visceral to my suggestion that supporting third party candidates from the local level-up is the path to actual change.
Another one who can't read
You didn't, "bro" - you completely missed anything resembling a point and you continue to do so with this comment. Let's take a look at your word choice:
"And if you could also explain why you think the current electoral system will allow for a third party win, that would be just fantastic."
Tell you what, Lily, if you could explain why you think that the US should prioritize manned space exploration, that would be just fantastic. So get on it. Oh, what's that you say? You haven't said anything about supporting manned space exploration, and so it's nonsense for me to ask you to defend that position? Well whaddya know.
Work on that listening thing, Lily, it'll take you far.
Voting for the Lesser Evil
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/noam-chomskys-8-point-rationale-vo...
- Noam Chomsky (my emphasis)
Oh really?
Voting for the lesser of two evils is what got us where we are. What do you have to say about that? And what are YOU doing to change things?
There are a couple of things that i take issue with Jill Stein
There are at least a couple of things that I take issue with Jill Stein on, however:
A) Her positions on an appropriate solution for the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian debacle; She's in favor of a one-state solution, while i believe that the two-state solution (i. e. Israel pulling her troops and right-wing Jewish settlers out of West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem and allowing the Palestinians in those territories to create their own independent, sovereign, Palestinian-majority State.) is the safest, sanest and most sensible and practical solution to the Israelii-Palestinian debacle.
B) Unlike me, Jill Stein is anti-vaccine, which, imho, is a very dangerous position, because it endangers people, and presents a true-blue public health issue, if one gets the drift.
It's not that simple or that benign
Yes, we're a democracy (or republic, actually), and that can be messy. But Trump is not just another candidate like Bob Dole or Gerald Ford. It's not a question of simply disagreeing with another candidate's positions. Trump has absolutely no qualifications for being president, and, more frightening, his only interest is promoting his brand by any means possible. He says whatever comes into his head, and his followers, all enraged for different reasons, don't care what he stands for as long as they can latch on to him as a representative of their anger. He's a dangerous man and would do enormous damage to our country. What I find particularly troubling is the mainstream Republicans, who should know better, but are supporting him because he's the nominee of their party. The damage Trump will do seems to be less important to them that some superficial notion of party loyalty. I think it's all going to hinge on voter turnout. You can be sure that the Trump fans are going to be voting enthusiastically, so I hope the people who abhor Trump will be in line that Tuesday, as well.
Never saw this type of
Never saw this type of visible support for McCain or Romney.
He belongs in New Hampshire,
He belongs in New Hampshire, a swing state. Some people are calling it "asinine" that Trump is holding rallies in non-swing states like CT.
People in Connecticut contribute campaign money.
The people panicking about Donnie little hands are the same people that realize they bet on the wrong horse and now they're looking for an excuse. "Campaigning in the wrong state", "they will steal the election", "main stream media bias"...
I'm still waiting
for a Palin-esque "I can see my penthouse from here!" moment from Il Douche when he's campaigning down in Fairfield County.
That said, I am 100% in favor of his quixotic tefforts in New England. Go get those 2 electoral votes in Maine, Donald! Throw all your money at Connecticut and its rich meaty six EVs. Keep on campaigning in Massachusetts, so you can keep the margin of defeat below 30 points. Don't worry your pretty little head about Virginia, Florida, Ohio, or North Carolina, which you're presently poised to lose by double-digits. Certainly don't concern yourself with something silly like Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas (!) showing you polling within the margin of error.
Predictions in a President Trump World
I have seen presidents come and go in my greater than half century life.
It is sort of like the old expression: "same $h!t different day"
Imagine if Trump is the president.
What do you think will happen?
How will it change your daily lives?
Will you still get up in the morning and go to work?
Will you still have to pay taxes?
Will you still take a week off and go to the Cape?
Now imagine President H. Clinton.
Will your answers be that different?
OK, I'll play
OK, I will play your game.
Imagine if Trump is the president.
What do you think will happen? I will have to leave the country. Three separate people I've known since childhood have already told me my family will no longer be welcome here. I WAS BORN IN BOSTON. But: reality, not a Thing to them. So, change #1.
How will it change your daily lives? Well, I'll be living in another country, apparently. So, yep: that's a change to my daily life. (And yes, I have actual plans and know what country and town I'd be going to; this isn't a joke for my community.) So, change #2.
Will you still get up in the morning and go to work? Not at first; I don't have a new job lined up yet, but yes, eventually I'll be working. Probably at a blue-collar job since I'll be an immigrant. I have a white-collar job now. So, change #3
Will you still have to pay taxes? In another country? Yep. I haven't decided if I'll revoke my US citizenship, but Trump has said he'll revoke dual citizenship so I suppose the US wouldn't be getting my taxes anymore. I plan to take all my money with me to the other country and fully cut ties. Change #4.
Will you still take a week off and go to the Cape? I don't do this now, and couldn't under everything I've laid out above.
Now imagine President H. Clinton.
Will your answers be that different?
I get to stay in the US? I change all my answers above, and my life not at all (with god's good grace).
This is election is not a joke. Stop acting like it is.
I love you and your parents.
I love you and your parents.
For your argument to be valid
For your argument to be valid, it would require a change to the 14th amendment. That is not something a President can do. It would require a vote from congress. (highly unlikely)
So either way if it is Hillary or Donald.... we would love to have you stay in Boston and continue to be a productive member of society. Ohh and try taking a few days off and go to the Cape it is rather pleasant. If you go in September the rates do down considerably.
Having to leave the country
Let me start by saying that I do not, in the least, question your choices. If leaving the country is what you feel you must do, then it's what you must do. However, on the subject of no longer being welcome here -- that's not a new thing for some of us, and it won't change no matter who is elected. If you're a gay person in America, a Donald Trump election won't be telling you that you're not welcome any more than Bill Clinton told you you were unwelcome when he signed DOMA in 1996. It won't be telling you that you're not welcome any more than the signing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 did, or the nineteen so-called "religious freedom" laws that have since been enacted. If you're a gay person in America, you found out that you weren't welcome but were grudgingly tolerated by the statements of numerous politicians both left and right whose thinking grudgingly "evolved" on same-sex marriage -- the same politicians who turn a blind eye to the lack of federal guarantees of civil rights for gay people.
So no, I don't question your conclusions or your decision. I merely point out that for some people, what you fear has already happened, has been a part of their landscapes their whole lives. A Trump election won't change that. The current passion for "religious freedom" laws didn't start with Trump and it doesn't gain any steam from him. And there's nowhere to run to.
Thanks for playing
Nope, not gay. And I'm not operating under the delusion that life is not difficult in America for a lot of people.
Trump will make life harder for a lot of people. My life has so far been pretty free of explicit discrimination. But his candidacy has already emboldened more than one person to be xenophobic, racist, and anti-Semitic to me. Though I've long been public about my political beliefs, this is the first election when people have felt comfortable expressing their horrible views publicly - and on a personal level - to my face.
Those people probably always were that way, but they've now shed their hyperbolic rocks and feel comfortable being horrible in public. And not one of them has been aware that they are racist, xenophobic, or anti-Semitic, nor will they admit it when called on it. They are angry, and willing to act on their anger, but they're not self-aware enough to understand their emotions. I can not share a society with them. Beyond that, the people who have said these things have explicitly told me that they're voting for Trump so people like my family will have to leave. I have an example to follow: from my grandparents who did leave Poland in time and from the rest of their families who did not.
Laws may or may not be enacted. I don't think Trump supporters understand civics well enough to understand that his suggestions will only happen with Congressional and Judicial support for overturning Constitutional amendments. That does not, however, mean that they will not make life very unpleasant if he's the President. History leads by example, after all. "It can't happen here" is only true if people choose to stop that history from repeating.
If just hearing my story makes you uncomfortable perhaps you can join me in loudly rejecting Trump's ideas and those of his supporters each and every time they say something illogical, or hateful.
I predict that, in the event of a Trump Presidency,
everybody here in the United States will really be at each other's throats.
A) All the old religious, ethnic and racial and class hatreds that have occurred or still do occur here in the United States will be re-kindled with a vengeance, and the constantly-occurring racial/religious hatreds will be even more intensified. Americans of every race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation, regardless of color, will be at each other's throats with a vengeance., including even the various white European American ethnic/religious groups in this country (i. e. Irish vs. the Italians, Catholics vs. Protestants, Jews vs. non-Jews, etc.), the rich vs. the poor, etc..
You mean we aren't already?
You mean we aren't already?
It's only that way if you want it to be :)
I'm not saying that at all, Patricia.
What I am saying, however, is that the United States is full of contradictions. On the one hand, yeh, there still is a great deal of religious, racial, ethnic and class bigotry. On the other hand, however, there's also a substantial amount of intreating, falling in love, and even intermarriage between various racial, ethnic, religious and racial groups, as well as among the various socioeconomic classes here in the United States.
There were times, however, when various intergroup tensions and enmities used to be even worse than they are now, and a Trump Presidency may very well cause this country to revert back to such times. Not what we'd want.
ugh
81 days, 13 hours and 7 minutes more of this shit.
But who's counting?
But who's counting?