This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Cease · 26-30
——On voting for him on his Principles: He has conflicting views, positions and actions on outsourcing, Carrier, relationship with Putin, NATO, TPP/NAFTA, Obama’s birth certificate, due process, Gun control, presidential travel, “Fake News”, White House transparency, abortion, climate change, supporting Jihadist, deficit, leaked information, cuts/saving health care, “Draining the Swamp”, attacking Syria, etc. etc. etc.
This list is very unnuanced and some things I think are relatively trivial in light of his more hideous and policy related flip-flops, but laying out all those out, even the little things, I don’t think anyone who’s “principled” (I assume they mean on good principles) can have so many changes and contradictions and justify them rationally or fairly. The only guiding principles I can extrapolate out of that that it is that accounts for most of them all are:
1.) If it benefits or pertains to him, it’s good; if it doesn’t, it’s bad. (Holds himself and things pertaining to him to a different standard)
2.) Pander to base.
——On people voting for him because he’s “good” business man: I think it fairest to call him a “risky” business man. But regardless of whether it’s “good” or “bad”, or even if there was a no doubt about “good” business record, people who voted for him on his business record have to explain what about him being a business man is positively transferable to politics and how him having private and/or foreign business and ties and having debt owed to many other entities is not a conflict of interest and is not going to effect his decision making. (Pretty much an applicable question to any politician that takes from a Super PACs, large donors or has some entity tie of their own that can be a source of bribery)
This list is very unnuanced and some things I think are relatively trivial in light of his more hideous and policy related flip-flops, but laying out all those out, even the little things, I don’t think anyone who’s “principled” (I assume they mean on good principles) can have so many changes and contradictions and justify them rationally or fairly. The only guiding principles I can extrapolate out of that that it is that accounts for most of them all are:
1.) If it benefits or pertains to him, it’s good; if it doesn’t, it’s bad. (Holds himself and things pertaining to him to a different standard)
2.) Pander to base.
——On people voting for him because he’s “good” business man: I think it fairest to call him a “risky” business man. But regardless of whether it’s “good” or “bad”, or even if there was a no doubt about “good” business record, people who voted for him on his business record have to explain what about him being a business man is positively transferable to politics and how him having private and/or foreign business and ties and having debt owed to many other entities is not a conflict of interest and is not going to effect his decision making. (Pretty much an applicable question to any politician that takes from a Super PACs, large donors or has some entity tie of their own that can be a source of bribery)