Posted by Tina
I couldn’t resist posting this story. The headline alone…Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary – Even on Wall Street, a powerful Sanders contingent so hates what Clinton stands for—the status quo—they’ll pull the lever for almost anyone else.”
Huh. Do we have AGREEMENT?
If they are voting for Trump over Hilary, they are by definition neither smart nor progressive.
And that article is terrible; the author spends a lot of time condemning Clinton and comparing her to Sanders, but never actually compares her to Trump, so how on earth is she supposed to prove Trump is a better choice for progressives? There isn’t a shred of evidence in the entire piece that that would be the case.
Again, paraphrasing Jack Marshall: There are many awful things Donald Trump has done that Hilary Clinton would never do. There are no awful things Hilary Clinton has done that Donald Trump would not do.
If you think Trump is above using a private e-mail server, allow me to give you my “Bridge Salesman” business card.
“If they are voting for Trump over Hilary, they are by definition neither smart nor progressive. ”
You are such an arrogant person, Chris. Ya know…from here you look exactly as you describe Trump…takes one to know one!
“the author spends a lot of time condemning Clinton and comparing her to Sanders”
Demonstrating why she, a progressive, cannot vote for either of her party’s candidates…yeah, really “terrible.”
O’Bummer has a TERRIBLE record. Hillary is a criminal with a poor foreign policy record. Bernie is a self described socialist. You progressives have NOTHING to run on. Your only choice is to attack Trump and anyone who supports him, even your own. (Goes without saying, they’re off message)
And you still haven’t figured out that it’s you who isn’t terribly bright and is pompous, bombastic, rude, arrogant, ignorant at times, and generally a real pain in the butt.
If they are voting for Trump over Hilary, they are by definition neither smart nor progressive.
So you’re not smart enough to gnaw off your leg to keep from dying in the trap? The guy in the article was.
Okay Chris, I finally read the article. Do you get the author was not YOU?
The author was not trying to PROVE anything. The author was reporting what he had found to be true through polling and feedback on his blog. This is of particular interest:
Tina–you simply don’t know how logical argument works. The author said her smart progressive friends were voting for Trump over Hilary. To show that this is a smart, careful choice, the author needs to show not only that Hilary Clinton is bad, but that she is worse than Trump. At no point in her article did she even make a direct comparison, so there is no way for her to prove the central thesis of her article.
Jeez–this is like arguing with a wall, only the wall wouldn’t be so loudly in denial of its own ignorance.
Donald Trump doesn’t actually know anything, Part 783:
Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump stumbled on a few international affairs issues and grew impatient over questions about foreign leaders during a telephone interview.
Speaking to Hugh Hewitt, a popular conservative radio host, Trump appeared to mistake Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Quds Forces for the Kurds, a Middle Eastern ethnic group.
Hewitt asked Trump if he is familiar with General Qassim Suleimani, the commander of the Quds Force. Trump responded by saying the Kurds have been “horribly mistreated.” Hewitt interrupted by saying that he was referring to the Quds, not the Kurds. Trump, a billionaire real estate mogul, said he thought Hewitt had mentioned the “Kurds.”
Not interested in ‘gotcha’
Hewitt later said he was not interested in “gotcha” questions.
The radio show host also told Trump that on the issue of Islamic terrorism, he is looking for the next U.S. president to know who “Hassan Nasrallah is, and Zawahiri, and al-Julani and al-Baghdadi. Do you know the players without a scorecard, yet, Donald Trump?” Hewitt asked.
Trump said he did not know who any of those people are.
Nasrallah is the leader of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah; Ayman al-Zawahiri is the head of al-Qaida following the death of Osama bin Laden; Abu Muhammad al-Julani is the leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, or al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaida affiliate fighting in Syria; Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is the head of the Islamic State group, which controls large parts of Syria and Iraq.
Trump later promised to become an authority on the names of foreign leaders if he is elected president. “I will be so good at the military your head will spin,” Trump told Hewitt.
http://www.voanews.com/content/trump-reveals-lack-knowledge-foreign-policy/2947174.html
Empty bluster is all this guy has.
Tina: “Demonstrating why she, a progressive, cannot vote for either of her party’s candidates…”
You didn’t even read the article you linked to. She never said she wouldn’t vote for Bernie. In fact, the entire basis of her article was that her friends would vote for Trump over Clinton of Bernie didn’t get the nomination.
I realize you were so excited to find even a chance of a rational person supporting Trump that you couldn’t be bothered to read the article, but come on.
And again, nowhere in the article did the author explain why Trump is a better choice than Clinton. Neither have you.
I can think Hugh Hewitt is a moron and still recognize he has a point about Trump. But the real takeaway from that interview is that Trump has no foreign policy knowledge. That doesn’t bother you?
I’m arrogant because you have yet to provide a single rational, coherent reason to vote for a baby who endorses violence as president of the United States, and every single reason you have presented has been a logical fallacy. You want me to be less arrogant? Argue better.
“I realize you were so excited to find even a chance of a rational person supporting Trump that you couldn’t be bothered to read the article, but come on. ”
Come on yourself. It’s true, I didn’t read into the article. In fact I made a BIG deal out of the “TITLE ALONE!
You might have noticed I’m carrying a pretty heavy load at PS these days in the middle of a very contentious campaign season. Were you a decent human being you might cut me some slack.
We’ll see…Next year.
And remember when you thought Hewitt was a moron or some such? (A men better steeped in the Constitution than BO)
“Smart progressive” is a contradiction of terms.
Simplicity, I love it!
Poor Hillary. She’s taking a thrashing all round. A guy named Turley savaged her in USA Today. She made a real good showing in this week’s speech, but her negatives are still daunting. Turley and others are worried at she, and more importantly her staff, can’t be made to see it, cause they got some serious work to do.
His assessment of her “Nixonian” traits give me a terrible feeling that we may come to witness a political implosion of tragic dimensions. She could be elected, and a year into her term the FBI could finally thrash through the mire, and she could be indicted over this email thing.
More and more it’s looking like she, rather arrogantly, thinks she can stonewall her way through this. That did not work for Bill and his dalliances.
And are you enjoying Ken Starr’s comeuppance? Bill can’t be allowed to consentually misbehave in office, but Ken’s football players are just boyish boys? Creepy beggar, knew he was a hypocrite. Anybody that rabid has to be.
“nowhere in the article did the author explain why Trump is a better choice than Clinton”
Oh that’s not true. Perhaps you were so enraged you failed to read it closely yourself. I repeat:
“They believe the country can no longer endure the status quo that Clinton represents—one of crushing inequality, and an economy that is literally killing off the less fortunate—and any change will be better.”
Ok, I should have said the author provided no believable explanation. “Any change would be better?” That’s a meaningless statement. I can think of many changes that would be obviously worse: electing Charles Manson. Dissolving the Supreme Court. Letting dogs vote.
“Any change would be better” is the argument of someone who doesn’t HAVE an argument. It’s the argument of someone who throws their hands up in the air and says, “I got nothing!” It’s completely without substance.
Holy crap, Tina–it’s like you’re in a contest with yourself to produce the most empty, vacuous, contentless arguments in favor of Trump possible, and you somehow beat your high score every day.
Re : “I can think of many changes that would be obviously worse: electing Charles Manson. Dissolving the Supreme Court. Letting dogs vote.”
Kinda like letting progressives vote.
Nah, that’s just frustration talking and perfectly understandable. When it comes time to fill in the bubble, reason will out.
Trump to crowd: “Look at my African-American over here!”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/donald-trump-african-american/
Trump went on to once again encourage violence against protesters, recounting the story of a black supporter he referred to as “my African-American” who “slugged” a liberal protester dressed as a Klansmen, prompting cheers from the audience. This protest was obviously racist and indefensible, but a presidential candidate should not be encouraging his supporters to resort to violence when provoked by outrageous protest.
Trump then lied to his audience, claiming “we have tremendous African-American support.” Trump’s favorability among African-Americans is actually between 4 and 12%.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/trump-and-the-black-vote/
My God. Did he really say that? Out loud?
And his mob did not cringe, wither, and die of the public humiliation?
We got a problem.
Using the same manner of’ ‘Pavlov’s classical conditioned reflex’ Liberals salivate at the bits of Trumps snippets publicized by the liberal media. exploit them and regurgitate a vile hatred of self reliance, and in doing so they ignore the pile of BS they create by their own consumption. Classical Pavlov’s principles of conditioning operate along a variety of governmental entitlements. All of which makes America susceptible to weakness.
Liberals in this years Presidential race ignore the results of their own parties failures, which has only been able to field candidates consisting of liars and socialist thinking. But then who among them is willing to give up a free lunch, when they depend on government other than their own ability to provide for themselves.
The smarter ones will!
.
Oh, Harold. Not snippets. Have you seen the Trump Tower new conference, with the “Mexican” and the “sleaze”?
You watch it all the way through, and see if you don’t cringe, wither and die.
The intolerably arrogant Chris: “Holy crap, Tina–it’s like you’re in a contest with yourself to produce the most empty, vacuous, contentless arguments in favor of Trump possible, and you somehow beat your high score every day. ”
You don’t get it bird brain. The other two choices that the American people have are just that terrible!
But they are still adults. Neither of them have advocated violence. Neither of them have talked about the size of their genitals in a debate. They don’t threaten journalists. They can form complete sentences most of the time. Neither of them said a judge should recuse himself for being Mexican. They are both better choices than Donald Trump. Clearly. Obviously. This is only an “arrogant” position because it is so clearly better than yours. I’ll stop being arrogant when you stop earning it.
But but but!
Whether they (Hillary and bernie) are adult could be argued.
Bernie didn’t have much of a real job until he was in his forties; he tended to sponge off people. And as a politician he’s just an old moldie hippie. Hippie types weren’t “adult” back in the day and they aren’t adult now. They think government should be the mommy and daddy while they play at basketweaving, peacemaking and “saving the planet” from imaginary crisis. They’re still adolescent enough to think if only THEY were in charge the commune would work.
Hillary bagged the Hippie look but saved the hippie ideals. She pretends to be a feminist but fails. She is a user and an opportunist who’s made her way by hanging on her husbands coat tails. Her contributions have been failures; she’s contributed nothing of substance. She and Bill have acquired millions of dollars by getting people to donate to them, they live high on the hog as flim flam artists. This is what you think of as adult and I want nothing of it.
“This is only an “arrogant” position because it is so clearly better than yours. ‘
He said with typical arrogance.
I’m not fans of the Clintons either, but once again I must remind you that they do have all their marbles.
Trump and his supporters are one terrifying little bit of mass psychosis.
The Clintons are both pathological liars, narcissists, and scammers…what’s not to like?
Trump has an ego, no doubt about it, and when “hit,” he hits back. At least its all up front and out in the open.
Obama and the Clinton’s attack covertly, they agitate through surrogates and use the law to destroy people and ruin their businesses and they pose with smiling “intellectual” faces as they do it. Dividing a nation is no great accomplishment but you find that preferable; I find it disgusting and deviant.
But Tina, Trump is also a pathological liar, narcissist, and scammer. He’s just also a bully, an idiot, and an inarticulate buffoon on top of it.
But Tina, but Tina.
You still don’t get it. In comparison your candidates are just that bad!
Hillary may talk in a more calm, reasonable sounding manner…but her manner is as phony as the candidate herself. She is a nasty, arrogant shrew whose record is less than stellar and whose propensity to corrupt practices has been well known for decades.
Bernie is animated and appears to be honest…but oh my God, his tax policy would strangle a very sick patient and given the right situation, he would resort to the same kind of nasty politics we’ve all come to expect from the left.
People are sick and tired of phony posers with empty promises. They are also completely done with economic policy that obliterates job opportunities and income, keeps their college educated kids in the basement, decimates the middle class, and never gets significantly better. We are done with the party that thinks it’s swell that Obama bashed our allies and sucked up to our enemies. We are done with a party that has no strategy to win the war. We are done with a party that is nonchalant about immigration and the border. And we are done with the obnoxious political tool known as Political Correctness.
Trump arrived at a precise opportune moment. Would I prefer a Ronald Reagan? Damn straight. But we don’t have that option. Trump is our nominee. Respect that for the reasons given.
“People are sick and tired of phony posers with empty promises.”
So, you’re gonna shoot yourselves in the geopolitical foot? Does this make any sense?
There is also the near certainty that your candidate is also a phony poser. (I mean, are you blind and deaf?) You have no idea at all what he’ll do in office.
And you’re wrong about the Clintons. He did, and she will do, more or less what they say they will. None of it what you’d call progressive, but it beats the pants off the geopolitical chaos likely to be fomented by the ignoramus.
Oh! Oh! I heard there’s a plot afoot. The California Repugs ( you all ! ) will write in “Ronald Reagan” tomorrow in huge numbers and humiliate The Donald.
Please make it so!
“People are sick and tired of phony posers with empty promises.”
If you don’t see the irony of a person using this as a reason to vote *for Trump,* you are beyond helping. You have stared too long into the abyss and it has stared back into you.
The Democratic Party does not deserve my support since it supports legalized abortion.
Jerry I wished you would have expanded on your idea a little more, I was curious to know more on this. Thanks for commenting.