Trump has never been in a position to put national security at risk.

Trump has never been in a position to put national security at risk. For better or worse, she’s got a track record. Trump doesn’t. Apples + Oranges on that count.

====

Heck, even Giuliani has more experience in national security than Trump and that’s not saying a lot.

Your average TSA worker has more national security experience.

I’m not saying her’s is any good but she’s got some.

===

You’re right about Giuliani. It was discussion bait.

Whether Clinton had a deer in the headlights or not, consider: She was there. Was she just dragged in from her vampire coffin for a press conference and put back in again, or is it more likely that she at least had some paperwork to file and a few phone calls to make?

What did Trump have to do? Hm.

Clinton was there. Trump was not. He didn’t have to be.

If he wins, he will have to be.

How will he perform? We have no idea. No way to test or prove it. No records to look at. No emails to scan through. Nothing. Empty.

What we have: a charismatic guy behind a podium saying stuff.

How does he handle political crisis? No way to test. Nothing to look at. There’s nothing there.

===

The truth of that is between them. I believe that as much as I believe 3/4 of the endorsements for Clinton. Politics is a lot of ass-smooching. But… maybe it’s true. No way to know. No proof. Nothing to test.

But maybe he did. I hope so. That’d be nice.

It goes back to the same thing: No evidence. It’s “he said that he did”. Wouldn’t hold up in court.

And.. that’s another thing: Clinton’s got reams of paperwork she could be sued for… indicted for. … sent to prison for.

She’s got paperwork behind her actions.

Trumps got…

====

When the police are looking for a suspected criminal, where do they go?

First they try their house. Not there?
Then they try the mother’s house. Not there?
Then they try the friend’s house.

Who’s got your back?

Your friends do.

Same holds true for Clinton and her friends.

Did Rudy lie for Trump? No way to know. Anonymous giving *is* the highest form of giving, it’s true. I believe that. But – they’re friends. Your friend is going to be President of the United States. Who wins? Families from an event from 15 years ago? Or the guy in front of you with the potential to put you in a damn good position if he wins?

Maybe he’s being honest. I don’t know. But politics requires a skeptical eye.

Even if Rudy was telling the absolute truth, which he might have, that means he’s done charity. I think that’s great: everybody should do charity.

Still isn’t foreign policy experience, either on paper or word of mouth.

====

He has experience with individuals. She has experience with governments.

Are they equivalent? I don’t know.

I have friends on my friends list from a good portion of the countries of the world. I’ve got friends from Korea (we use Google translate), Russia (I know a tiny bit of Russian), China (Google translate), and from countries where English is a first or second language.

My experience in foreign governments is on par with Trump’s. I should run in 2020.

====

They do. But, there’s a crucial difference:

Stakeholding.

With Trump’s friends, the stakes are their bank accounts.

With Clinton’s foreign government experience (and I’m NOT saying it’s any good, just that she has it), the stakes were political. Governments. Nations.

Bank account =/= nation.

It’s _possible_ to find some parallels between bank accounts and GDP, or between corporations and governments.

But… there’s some differences:

Your company doesn’t perform, you can fire people and they leave the company.

Your government doesn’t perform, they’re all still there and you have to answer to them.

====

I’m not talking about government officials.

Analogy: Corporation has managers and workers.
Government has officials and “the people”.

Corporation can fire managers and workers.

Government can fire officials. A government can’t fire “the people”.


As far as Clinton being good at overthrowing foreign governments and assassinating political targets, THAT’S WHAT PRESIDENTS DO.

What president didn’t get involved in a war?
What president didn’t do dirty things to get things accomplished?

She’s got her hands plenty dirty in politics, war and death.

Trump’s got his hands dirty on Twitter tweets.

===

I’m not watching a documentary, whether I agree with it or not. The format of documentaries is a formula designed to leave the viewer with “only one conclusion”. I don’t watch them, whether it’s political or… well they’re always political in some way. Made the mistake of watching Michael Moore’s electric car thing a long time ago. Ugh,. Leads you the whole way through. They all do that. I have friends in the documentary business: it’s all tricks, just like TED talks. Once you know the formula, you can’t watch them anymore and take them seriously.

====

That’s good. She was in a political position to make bad decisions and cover it up. That’s experience.

She should run as “bigger, badder asshole than Trump” platform. She’s a tough bitch.

….Jared… you believe documentaries are a collection of facts? Look.. they’re collections of hand-picked facts presented in a certain format in order to convince you logically and emotionally that the final conclusion they come up with MUST be true, with no possible escape from their conclusion.

They’re constructed very carefully for that purpose. That’s what gives them their convincing power: Not the facts: FActs don’t speak for themselves. Somebody does the speaking. Soembody does the presenting. Somebody orders the presentation in a certain way to best convince the viewer that their final conclusion is air-tight.

You know who gets fooled by documentaries the most?

Rational thinkers. They’re the easiest to fool for several reasons.

====

I don’t like her. I don’t know if she’d be any good as President. I don’t even know who I’m voting for.

But I REALLY wish Trump was at least the mayor of a village somewhere. SOMETHING.

====

The one thing I’ll say for Trump is this:

What you see is all there is. You get exactly what’s you see.

I don’t know if you get what you HEAR, but you get what you see.

======

If nothing else, I hope this election cycle paves the way for a 3rd/4th legitimate party so at least 2020 gives us some choice. Still not sure how I’m voting this time around.

====

Trump’s “Big Daddy Will Take Care Of You” + Clinton’s Thick Skin (25 yrs of haters and she’s STILL at it) + Sanders / Stein’s “Let’s work together to change things + Johnson’s “Give people the freedom to sort themselves out while guaranteeing basic liberties” = somebody that wouldn’t be 1/2 bad I suppose.

But separately? blech.

====

I think that’s what gets me about Trump: He’s a whiner. He’s got a VERY thin skin and he’s always complaining. He should have a tumblr account.

====

Well, sociopaths don’t break the law for fear of punishment/incarceration. It’s the same reasons companies don’t always do evil: They don’t want to get sued. Corporate ethics is based upon doing as much as they can without getting sued in order to grow profit.

That’s not evil: Corporates don’t know good and evil.

Sociopaths aren’t evil: They don’t know good and evil.

In both cases, they just know punishment and want to avoid it.

====

thank you. Debating on this issue has helped me clarify my own thoughts on things.

I don’t always know what I think about things unless I’m challenged. Tonight, I know more about my stance on things, and I honestly appreciate the back-and-forth.

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


2 − two =

Leave a Reply