**** Elections thread *****

[jackvance]

Okay, in the interest of Occam's Razor, I'm going to propose what I think is a very simple explanation for all of this and I think it is very difficult to top this explanation to Occam's standard:

Trump--a real estate magnate who has been held in infamy for being an egotistical, greedy asshole well before he was a republican, well before he was a democrat, and well before he entered the political realm at all--was interested in expanding his power. He shot for the moon and (long story short) became the POTUS. He now intends to abuse that power to pet his ego, tout his brand and advance his financial interests as well as those of his business associates.

I think this is a very simple and straight-forward (honestly if you'd told anyone this a year ago it'd be like "LDFO!!!") narrative and does not seem to be directly contradicted by any part of the story thus far, whereas it is supported by many things that we have learned thus far. How he duped 46.3% of the electorate into thinking he was sincerely out to help the American people is the most complex part of the tale, but I think it's a much easier one to explain away than things like this.

On to my rebuttals ...

The good thing about Trump is that he's saying things the way they are, that he's battling with career politicians (in both parties), with the corporate media, and promises a halt to cultural marxism, the power tool used to keep the populace unaware and compliant. If you've read wikileaks you'll now how corrupt the washington insiders are, they don't care about any of the things they ralk about, it's all political powergames. Trump always said he'd only run when it was most needed, and now it was more needed than ever. Plus it's more entertaining this way!

[surviva316]

cultural marxism, the power tool used to keep the populace unaware and compliant.

I would love for you to elaborate on this.

If you've read wikileaks you'll now how corrupt the washington insiders are, they don't care about any of the things they ralk about, it's all political powergames.

This statement has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump. It's not sufficient to just say, "Politicians tend to do bad stuff," to conclude that Trump will do good stuff. I've been repeating this point over and over and over again in this thread, and while that might have seemed like a vague, theoretical, piquionne logical observation to make, it should be a harder reality now that Trump is (among other things) appointing donors to his campaign at record rates.

[Poopadoop]

It's not sufficient to just say, "Politicians tend to do bad stuff," to conclude that Trump will do good stuff.

On the contrary, there's ample evidence he's been doing bad stuff all along and continues to do it, all the while claiming to be a champion in fighting corruption.

Just look at the mess his so-called charity is in.

Trump's charity has admitted it violated IRS regulations barring it from using its money or assets to benefit him, his family, his companies or substantial contributors to the foundation.

The admissions by the Donald J. Trump Foundation were in a 2015 tax filing made public after a presidential election in which it was revealed that Trump has used the charity to settle lawsuits, make a $25,000 political contribution and purchase items, such as a painting of himself, that was displayed at one of his properties.

[wufwugy]

On the contrary, there's ample evidence he's been doing bad stuff all along and continues to do it, all the while claiming to be a champion in fighting corruption.

I don't have an opinion on the charity. There's typically a remarkable amount of noise in that stuff.

When we're talking about "fighting corruption", instead of doing what the standard politician does -- pick mostly political insiders -- he's picking mostly outsiders.

[Poopadoop]

I don't have an opinion on the charity. There's typically a remarkable amount of noise in that stuff.

There's nothing unclear about it. A charity isn't meant to make you wealthier or pay your bills. That's pretty much the opposite of the definition of the word 'charity'.

When we're talking about "fighting corruption", instead of doing what the standard politician does -- pick mostly political insiders -- he's picking mostly outsiders.

Just because an insider is corrupt doesn't mean an outsider isn't. The trick here is that he's hiring people with no experience so it looks all drainy-swampy when in fact he's already proven that he himself is as corrupt as they come. There's no reason apart from his rhetoric (which has in the past been shown to be mostly lies) to believe he's at all concerned about how honest the people he is hiring are.

[Poopadoop]

Any opinions from the Trumpites on him skipping all those intelligence briefings? Isn't that kind of an important thing to keep on top of for a future president?

[Poopadoop]

And what about his fake university? Does that sound like something a man concerned with honesty and integrity would do?

[wufwugy]

Any opinions from the Trumpites on him skipping all those intelligence briefings? Isn't that kind of an important thing to keep on top of for a future president?

This is an example of the noise I previously mentioned. The charity thing is very likely not so cut and dried as you think.

Trump is only skipping the redundant briefings. He only wants to be briefed when something changes. This is good.

[wufwugy]

Trump is appointing donors to his campaign at record rates.

Show me.