Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

PeeTex wrote

I do not accept your premise that Trump will be devastating, that he will cause a nuclear war, that he will wreck the economy or any of your assumptions...

So in my feeble mind your assertions are absurd, Trump could make the country worse but likely no worse that Bush 2 did.

So, you don't think Trump will cause a dumb war or wreck the global economy, and you use as a worst case scenario somebody who started a dumb war and wrecked the global economy. Do you even listen to yourself?

People will go along with Trump because he's the President. Remember when Bush issued torture orders and people just did it, in a blatant violation of military codes of conduct? You'd be surprised how people violate their core belief systems because of submissiveness and the feeling that he's "one of us" and not "one of them."

If you still feel compelled to change my mind - go fuck yourself.

Nice attitude.

I'm not so sure that comparing Trump to the Bush Administration is a very good one. I might be wrong but my gut tells me that Trump will never have the support that Bush did. Maybe if he jumps into bed with the military complex but I still think it's a long shot....or at least I hope.

Not to worry Matt, Trump U and his attempt to paint the Federal Judicial system as unethical will likely take him down just like Hillary's email scandal will take her down. I would be very happy with that scenario. It would shake up both parties and likely give us a Cruz, Sanders race, and that is an easy choice.

It's okay to call racism racism, PeeTex (even if it means having to change your mind about who Trump really is).

Good one PeeTex.

I'd like to change the media, although that might be even harder than changing government.

I realized that our media is a hair more independent than they might be, owned by big corporations vs the gov't. It's nothing new I suppose, but I'm growing increasing sick of them trying to direct the news vs report it.  I get pissed at both sides, but today I happen to be sick of the liberal media telling Bernie he has to get out.  Andrea Mitchell is so blinded by her excitement about a potential woman president that she can't see straight.  It's sexism.

I believe that big corporations are in large part - the government or they at least have an intertwined relationship that benefits a small few.

mattchuck2 wrote

It's okay to call racism racism, PeeTex (even if it means having to change your mind about who Trump really is).

Sorry, don't think it was Trump who was racist, he was casting doubt on the judges credibility, he would have said the same about any judge who threw out the motion to not side with him on this. Trump was calling the Judge biased and calling his ethics in question that is not a racist comment and to say so is total BS. I think the media was totally wrong on painting as a racist comment. It's as much a racist statement as saying a black defendant can't get a fair trial by a white judge in Alabama, or a white guy can't get a fair trail by a black judge in Alabama, if I said either I would not be making a statement as a racist, I would be calling into question judicial integrity. This is where I think Trump is treading on thin ice. I don't think he is a racist in this, I think he wants to influence the outcome of the case and he likely is so blinded by it that he failed to see the larger impact. This is his second mistake and that is what will turn the tide.  

If he had been smart he would dodge all comments about it like he did his tax return and get an operative or his lawyers to go after the judges integrity. In effect he went around his staff on this. So to me he just proved he won't be able to build a team that he will trust enough to carry through on execution while he focuses on policy.

He may survive this incident but if he can't put together a effective team and trust them to do their job he won't make it much further.

Bottom line media equals big business, big business indirectly either owns or influences politicians via its multiple lobbys .

The same is true for so called non profits ,they too are often big businesses who behave in similar ways . Today no complex organization is truly independent and pure and not peddling influence or trying to.

To believe otherwise is naive and so again WE are through many channels our own worst enemy .

As individuals we abrogate our DIRECT involvement in public service for a variety of reasons, too busy , disinterested , apathy whatever .As members of organizations of any stripe we are laboring in an enterprise that at worst is coercive and rules by fear ( of unemployment ) so we conform to organizational norms which SOMETIME may contradict our personal values when they use PACS to peddle influence or lobby for some other notion that goes against our grain

So yeah it is everyday behavior ...but now the system has shown its weakest moment in decades when these two less than supportable candidates are proffered for our vote . In the extreme both conventions may be challenged and candidates rejected when and if fthey are legally exposed for the kinds of things  being spoken about here . The country is thristing for  ethical leadership

Unbelievable the lengths you go to to defend Trump.He's saying that people of Mexican descent (and now he's added Muslims, too) are incapable of doing their jobs correctly because they are blinded by hatred for him. That's pretty fucking racist if you ask me.

I can't quite put my finger on why, but to me it's funny (maybe odd is a better word) that he KNOWS the people he has slammed will hate him.

Yes. One of things I took from my Soc 101 course was that with Marxist Theory it's not like there are big bad guys in a room plotting how to take over the world, it's just a sort of natural progression that is part of "normal" human behavior.

Man I wish I had more time to study Soc and Psy! I love that stuff. Unfortunately I am buried in my Anatomy and Physiology summer course right now. This one is intense for me! It's a whole lot of information packed into 8 weeks. Well then, back to making my flash cards.

PeeTex wrote

If he had been smart he would dodge all comments about it like he did his tax return...

Do you think we've heard the last of the Tax Return thing? It goes to the core subject of transparency and trust, two issues where Clinton is desperate to bring Trump down to her own sorry ratings on those matters. She'll circle back around to that eventually.

So to me he just proved he won't be able to build a team that he will trust enough to carry through on execution while he focuses on policy.

You think he is interested in "focusing on policy"? He's had months to learn about world affairs and he hasn't learned shit. He is terrifyingly ignorant of world issues and he doesn't seem to have the willingness to learn. He's Sarah Palin with Money.

What are you majoring in ?? Agree with you btw about Psych and Soc as an adult student you also bring perspective and experience which has meaning beyond beyond that of traditional aged undegrads . Always enjoyed working with our adult non traditional students when i was a dean for Lifelong Learning . MAny of those people were our finest students and had a zest for learning and meanings beyond the text .

Good luck with A and P !!!

 Trump's offensive against the judge in the Trump U case was a misstep....but not because it was a racially motivated attack.  He didn't say the judge was unable to be impartial due to the color of his skin.  Trump's made this one about nationalism, not racism, and that was a big mistake.  For starters, he's assuming a Mexican-American U.S. Citizen is going to put Mexican nationalistic pride ahead of his chosen home nation and his sworn duty to uphold U.S. laws and regulations.  Secondly, while the whole Mexican wall thing could be considered offensive to anyone of Mexican descent, the issues regarding the wall were aimed at non-U.S. citizens seeking to enter the U.S. illegally.  Any U.S. citizen, of Mexican descent or otherwise, should get behind policies that prohibit illegal immigration of any kind.  However, in going after this judge Trump is attacking a prominent citizen member of the Latin American community.  In doing so he's offending not just potential illegals in Mexico looking to come across the border, but the legitimate Latino community in the U.S.  It's one thing to be insensitive toward citizens of another country who look to illegally enter the U.S. and cause this country harm (and I don't mean by raping), but it's an entirely different thing to show such insensitivity and disregard toward citizens of the U.S.  The GOP can hardly afford that kind of alienation.

Matt, your argument against Trump on this one would be more effective if you addressed the true issue and implications of his statements......as opposed to adding more rhetorical sound bites about racism.

JTG4eva! wrote

 he's assuming a Mexican-American U.S. Citizen is going to put Mexican nationalistic pride ahead of his chosen home nation and his sworn duty to uphold U.S. laws and regulations.  

His CHOSEN home nation? He was born in Indiana.

Hey, I didn't have time to look up the dude's specifics.  You get my point.  He's a U.S. citizen.  I'm sure if this judge wanted to he could find some way to seek citizenship in Mexico if his Mexican heritage was that important to him.....but he CHOOSES not to do so.  But the point stands, Trump moved on from offending Mexican citizens who want to break U.S. law, to directly attacking a U.S. citizen based on his heritage.  Bad move.

upchuck wrote

PeeTex wrote

If he had been smart he would dodge all comments about it like he did his tax return...

Do you think we've heard the last of the Tax Return thing? It goes to the core subject of transparency and trust, two issues where Clinton is desperate to bring Trump down to her own sorry ratings on those matters. She'll circle back around to that eventually.

No, but like Trump U, it's an ongoing case and he had every right not to comment, in fact he should not until it is over, otherwise it gets litigated in the press which is not the right place. So I defend hims right and don't consider it a transparency issue.

You think he is interested in "focusing on policy"? He's had months to learn about world affairs and he hasn't learned shit. He is terrifyingly ignorant of world issues and he doesn't seem to have the willingness to learn. He's Sarah Palin with Money.

Again, you make unsubstantiated irrational arguments that only go to degrade your point of view rather than reinforce it.

PeeTex wrote

He's Sarah Palin with Money.

Again, you make unsubstantiated irrational arguments that only go to degrade your point of view rather than reinforce it.

While I fancy myself a Republican and think Trump is the lesser of evils (not that either he or HRC are fit to be President).....I gotta throw in with Matt on this one.  Trump is in the deep end of a very large pool, and all he's got is swimmies.  He's out of his depth, not that that means he's going to start a war or ruin the U.S./World economy.  Checks and Balances seems to be a lesson Matt missed.

JTG4eva! wrote

Matt, your argument against Trump on this one would be more effective if you addressed the true issue and implications of his statements......as opposed to adding more rhetorical sound bites about racism.

I agree with this. Sensational rhetoric just tends to discredit the person making the argument.

Lets just hope both parties blow up and we get some better choices out of it.