On 9 Oct 2016 03:59:21 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

On 2016-10-09, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 10/9/2016 1:45 PM, Tony wrote:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a49400/robert-de-niro/
Beautiful.
De Niro is probably mainly a democratic supporter but has also defended some
republicans in the past.
He doesn't like interviews and there are some subjects he will not be
interviewed about, one of those is politics.
If only a few more influential people would speak out about arguably the most
dangerous man ever to stand for President of the USA.
Tony

He is an actor.
Some-one who repeats lines fed to him.
And moves about a bit as directed by a Director.
He is as qualified to speak on politics as is every-one of voting age in
the US.
And has, like any-one else, obvious biases

The questions still remain

1) How did the republicans let him be their candiate?
2) Does the world want President Trump?

Democracy, it is far from perfect.

Those questions were extensively covered during the early parts of the campaign. The second is easy - almost everywhere around the world the perception has been that Trump would be a disaster.

The first question is more complicated. Essentially the Republican
party stopped being serious about governing the country and were
captured by their extremist fringe - all sorts of kooks were
encouraged by the house and senate republicans going feral and blindly
opposing nearly everything, often with lies and distortions about the
motives of the democrats and the reality of policies. Think of the
accusations of "death panels" relating to the health insurance
policies. The growth of Fox with its distorted and extremist
commentators contributed to the dishonesty, and moderate and above all
rational debate, particularly within the Republican Party, became
drowned out by thoe who could not see beyond slogans. The party
catered for all sorts of prejudices and encouraged the blaming of
victims, and gave hope to those who wanted a return to a mythical past
where there was no crime, an all white population, no crime, and an
all powerful USA. They were ripe for an unashamed populist, which they
got in Trump. His bizarre views were known, but many in the party
thought he could be controlled - importantly he believed in
significantly lower taxes and his rhetoric promised reducing the size
of government - classical dog whistles for the unthinking right.

Trump has since of course made many bizarre claims - you will remember
the wall across the Mexican border which the Mexicans were going to
pay for.

It is not the crazy policies that will now kill his prospects however,
but inevitably personal attitudes. He could say what he liked about
Mexicans, Hispanics and Blacks, but even the Republican kooks draw the
line at his attitudes and actions relating to white women.

The hope is that the Republican party will return to a more balanced
party, rejecting the wilder excesses of the likes of Fox and the "Tea
Party" faction - recognising as National do in New Zealand that many
of those extremists have nowhere else to go - although here National
have had to provide support for retaining the viability of ACT.

The shortcomings of Trump have been known for a long time. That he got
the Republican nomination is a sign of a very sick party.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 12:13:44 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 10 October 2016 07:59:07 UTC+13, george wrote:

On 10/9/2016 4:29 PM, Tony wrote:

No I didn't miss it! Everyone has bias, there is no avoiding it. I think that
Trump is seriously dangerous.

I dont think that he's dangerous. Naive more like.

He's got a huge ego, and hence believes his own self ahead of the advice of others. His judgement has been seen to be very poor and he blurts out half thought through off the cuff ideas as policy. He has no "filter" whatsoever.

Well aid.

All that, at the helm of the worlds largest economy and worlds largest military industrial complex?

If that's not dangerous then what is?

Fortunately one of the foundations of the USA constitution is the
principle that no one person has absolute power. Having said that,
the President is Commander in Chief etc. so could do some damage. I
would expect that the Clinton campaign will put fear of the
consequences of voting for Trump as a central campaign plank.

However those 'republicans' bailing because of an old recording of what
appears to be a bull session need to examine their party loyalties in
the light that Clinton will be president and the Republicans have 8
years out in the cold

Its the continuation of a pattern that shows the true character of the man: A loose cannon.

And Trump is no republican. His "policies" - economic isolation, tax and spend

etc are to the left of HRC's.

If Trump fails spectacularly as many of us hope, most senior
Republicans will need to point out that they distanced themselves,
however late in the piece, from Trump. They seek not only to damage
the Trump campaign but also to bolster their position in the
post-election wash up.



--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:14:02 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On 9 Oct 2016 03:59:21 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

On 2016-10-09, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 10/9/2016 1:45 PM, Tony wrote:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a49400/robert-de-niro/
Beautiful.
De Niro is probably mainly a democratic supporter but has also defended some
republicans in the past.
He doesn't like interviews and there are some subjects he will not be
interviewed about, one of those is politics.
If only a few more influential people would speak out about arguably the most
dangerous man ever to stand for President of the USA.
Tony

He is an actor.
Some-one who repeats lines fed to him.
And moves about a bit as directed by a Director.
He is as qualified to speak on politics as is every-one of voting age in >>> the US.
And has, like any-one else, obvious biases

The questions still remain

1) How did the republicans let him be their candiate?
2) Does the world want President Trump?

Democracy, it is far from perfect.

Those questions were extensively covered during the early parts of the >campaign. The second is easy - almost everywhere around the world the >perception has been that Trump would be a disaster.

The first question is more complicated. Essentially the Republican
party stopped being serious about governing the country and were
captured by their extremist fringe - all sorts of kooks were
encouraged by the house and senate republicans going feral and blindly >opposing nearly everything, often with lies and distortions about the
motives of the democrats and the reality of policies. Think of the >accusations of "death panels" relating to the health insurance
policies. The growth of Fox with its distorted and extremist
commentators contributed to the dishonesty, and moderate and above all >rational debate, particularly within the Republican Party, became
drowned out by thoe who could not see beyond slogans. The party
catered for all sorts of prejudices and encouraged the blaming of
victims, and gave hope to those who wanted a return to a mythical past
where there was no crime, an all white population, no crime, and an
all powerful USA. They were ripe for an unashamed populist, which they
got in Trump. His bizarre views were known, but many in the party
thought he could be controlled - importantly he believed in
significantly lower taxes and his rhetoric promised reducing the size
of government - classical dog whistles for the unthinking right.

Trump has since of course made many bizarre claims - you will remember
the wall across the Mexican border which the Mexicans were going to
pay for.

It is not the crazy policies that will now kill his prospects however,
but inevitably personal attitudes. He could say what he liked about
Mexicans, Hispanics and Blacks, but even the Republican kooks draw the
line at his attitudes and actions relating to white women.

The hope is that the Republican party will return to a more balanced
party, rejecting the wilder excesses of the likes of Fox and the "Tea
Party" faction - recognising as National do in New Zealand that many
of those extremists have nowhere else to go - although here National
have had to provide support for retaining the viability of ACT.

The shortcomings of Trump have been known for a long time. That he got
the Republican nomination is a sign of a very sick party.

That's a largely accurate assessment Rich. One thing you did not
allude to though is voter disenchantment. From memory the
Presidential elections see a turnout of just over 50% of eligible
voters - so a large minority of voters don't bother to exercise their
right - indicating long-standing disillusion with the political
process. The sheer size of the USA - both population and economy -
mean that ordinary people are far more removed from their political
leaders than in NZ.

Trump appeals most to those who value his seeming independence in that
he is not a career politician and has at least maintained if not built
on the wealth he inherited. Those who favour Republicans and believe
an outsider Presidential candidate can only do good have found a home.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 10/11/2016 8:30 PM, Crash wrote:

If Trump fails spectacularly as many of us hope, most senior
Republicans will need to point out that they distanced themselves,
however late in the piece, from Trump. They seek not only to damage
the Trump campaign but also to bolster their position in the
post-election wash up.

And they will have to account to those who voted for Trump and
will be asking as to why they should support a party that obviously
doesn't deserve support.
If the Democrats get one house and the presidency we can look forward to
at least 4 years of nothing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 10/10/2016 11:14 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On 9 Oct 2016 03:59:21 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

On 2016-10-09, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 10/9/2016 1:45 PM, Tony wrote:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a49400/robert-de-niro/
Beautiful.
De Niro is probably mainly a democratic supporter but has also defended some
republicans in the past.
He doesn't like interviews and there are some subjects he will not be
interviewed about, one of those is politics.
If only a few more influential people would speak out about arguably the most
dangerous man ever to stand for President of the USA.
Tony

He is an actor.
Some-one who repeats lines fed to him.
And moves about a bit as directed by a Director.
He is as qualified to speak on politics as is every-one of voting age in >>> the US.
And has, like any-one else, obvious biases

The questions still remain

1) How did the republicans let him be their candiate?
2) Does the world want President Trump?

Democracy, it is far from perfect.

Those questions were extensively covered during the early parts of the campaign. The second is easy - almost everywhere around the world the perception has been that Trump would be a disaster.

The first question is more complicated. Essentially the Republican
party stopped being serious about governing the country and were
captured by their extremist fringe - all sorts of kooks were
encouraged by the house and senate republicans going feral and blindly opposing nearly everything, often with lies and distortions about the
motives of the democrats and the reality of policies. Think of the accusations of "death panels" relating to the health insurance
policies. The growth of Fox with its distorted and extremist
commentators contributed to the dishonesty, and moderate and above all rational debate, particularly within the Republican Party, became
drowned out by thoe who could not see beyond slogans. The party
catered for all sorts of prejudices and encouraged the blaming of
victims, and gave hope to those who wanted a return to a mythical past
where there was no crime, an all white population, no crime, and an
all powerful USA. They were ripe for an unashamed populist, which they
got in Trump. His bizarre views were known, but many in the party
thought he could be controlled - importantly he believed in
significantly lower taxes and his rhetoric promised reducing the size
of government - classical dog whistles for the unthinking right.

Trump has since of course made many bizarre claims - you will remember
the wall across the Mexican border which the Mexicans were going to
pay for.

It is not the crazy policies that will now kill his prospects however,
but inevitably personal attitudes. He could say what he liked about
Mexicans, Hispanics and Blacks, but even the Republican kooks draw the
line at his attitudes and actions relating to white women.

The hope is that the Republican party will return to a more balanced
party, rejecting the wilder excesses of the likes of Fox and the "Tea
Party" faction - recognising as National do in New Zealand that many
of those extremists have nowhere else to go - although here National
have had to provide support for retaining the viability of ACT.

The shortcomings of Trump have been known for a long time. That he got
the Republican nomination is a sign of a very sick party.

How do you explain the equally dangerous Clinton. Or doesn't it matter
in your eyes because she supports the left and has a proven record of
typical lefty uselessness?

Imo the election in USA is going to be a disaster for the rest of us no
matter which of them win.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 9/10/2016 4:59 p.m., Gordon wrote:

On 2016-10-09, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 10/9/2016 1:45 PM, Tony wrote:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a49400/robert-de-niro/
Beautiful.
De Niro is probably mainly a democratic supporter but has also defended some
republicans in the past.
He doesn't like interviews and there are some subjects he will not be
interviewed about, one of those is politics.
If only a few more influential people would speak out about arguably the most
dangerous man ever to stand for President of the USA.
Tony

He is an actor.
Some-one who repeats lines fed to him.
And moves about a bit as directed by a Director.
He is as qualified to speak on politics as is every-one of voting age in
the US.
And has, like any-one else, obvious biases

The questions still remain

1) How did the republicans let him be their candiate?
2) Does the world want President Trump?

Democracy, it is far from perfect.

Yeah but is America truly democratic? I look at their voting system and
wonder if they understand the concept of one man one vote.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:44:19 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:14:02 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On 9 Oct 2016 03:59:21 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

On 2016-10-09, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 10/9/2016 1:45 PM, Tony wrote:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a49400/robert-de-niro/
Beautiful.
De Niro is probably mainly a democratic supporter but has also defended some
republicans in the past.
He doesn't like interviews and there are some subjects he will not be >>>>> interviewed about, one of those is politics.
If only a few more influential people would speak out about arguably the most
dangerous man ever to stand for President of the USA.
Tony

He is an actor.
Some-one who repeats lines fed to him.
And moves about a bit as directed by a Director.
He is as qualified to speak on politics as is every-one of voting age in >>>> the US.
And has, like any-one else, obvious biases

The questions still remain

1) How did the republicans let him be their candiate?
2) Does the world want President Trump?

Democracy, it is far from perfect.

Those questions were extensively covered during the early parts of the >>campaign. The second is easy - almost everywhere around the world the >>perception has been that Trump would be a disaster.

The first question is more complicated. Essentially the Republican
party stopped being serious about governing the country and were
captured by their extremist fringe - all sorts of kooks were
encouraged by the house and senate republicans going feral and blindly >>opposing nearly everything, often with lies and distortions about the >>motives of the democrats and the reality of policies. Think of the >>accusations of "death panels" relating to the health insurance
policies. The growth of Fox with its distorted and extremist
commentators contributed to the dishonesty, and moderate and above all >>rational debate, particularly within the Republican Party, became
drowned out by thoe who could not see beyond slogans. The party
catered for all sorts of prejudices and encouraged the blaming of
victims, and gave hope to those who wanted a return to a mythical past >>where there was no crime, an all white population, no crime, and an
all powerful USA. They were ripe for an unashamed populist, which they
got in Trump. His bizarre views were known, but many in the party
thought he could be controlled - importantly he believed in
significantly lower taxes and his rhetoric promised reducing the size
of government - classical dog whistles for the unthinking right.

Trump has since of course made many bizarre claims - you will remember
the wall across the Mexican border which the Mexicans were going to
pay for.

It is not the crazy policies that will now kill his prospects however,
but inevitably personal attitudes. He could say what he liked about >>Mexicans, Hispanics and Blacks, but even the Republican kooks draw the
line at his attitudes and actions relating to white women.

The hope is that the Republican party will return to a more balanced
party, rejecting the wilder excesses of the likes of Fox and the "Tea >>Party" faction - recognising as National do in New Zealand that many
of those extremists have nowhere else to go - although here National
have had to provide support for retaining the viability of ACT.

The shortcomings of Trump have been known for a long time. That he got
the Republican nomination is a sign of a very sick party.

That's a largely accurate assessment Rich. One thing you did not
allude to though is voter disenchantment. From memory the
Presidential elections see a turnout of just over 50% of eligible
voters - so a large minority of voters don't bother to exercise their
right - indicating long-standing disillusion with the political
process. The sheer size of the USA - both population and economy -
mean that ordinary people are far more removed from their political
leaders than in NZ.

Trump appeals most to those who value his seeming independence in that
he is not a career politician and has at least maintained if not built
on the wealth he inherited. Those who favour Republicans and believe
an outsider Presidential candidate can only do good have found a home.

Voter disenchantment appears to be something talked about in quite a
few countries. Part may be due to the unsatisfactory resolution of the
"global financial crisis", with banks and financiers who were largely
at least in part to blame for the problems coming thrugh unscathed -
and with banks now making record profits . . .. Part may be from
broken p[romises where many conservative governments have continued to dismantle government structures and assistance to those in deed while
also overseeing tax cuts to the wealthy and growing inequality
accompanied by growing poverty. Couple those with a reduction in
serious journalism, a perception of increasing government "spin",
blatant examples of crony capitalism and favouritism, and politicians
stating that they want to get politics off the front pages, cynicism
about politicians has grown - and because of the 'but they all do it"
excuse used when political excesses are ocassionally publicised, that
distrust has spread to those not at fault as well as those in power.

Such disillusionment has been given as a reason for the Brexit vote,
and for the increased support for British Labour, the rise of Boris
Johnson, and the rise of Trump. But the reasons you give for Trumps
acceptance by so many Republicans is remarekably similar tot he spin
about John Key - a non-politician, state house boy made good, wealthy
through his own efforts. He is capable of being the buffoon to make
himself folksey, but not emphasised was that his work was built on
deception and a 'win and walk away' mentality - he doesn't care for
others, like Palin is vain enough to believe his own rhetoric, but is
clever enough to avoid putting himself in danger of actually having to
discuss policies at length, or answer serious questions without being
briefed first. He is therefore much more personable than Trump, but
has the same neo-libertarian views of lower taxes for the wealthy,
selling off state assets and running up debt. He is a more urbane and
skilful version of Aaron Glilmore, as are many of the National Cabinet
- but importantly for National he has turned out to be .exactly what
the Republicans really believed until very recently that they had with
Trump - someone who will deliver votes while allowing the real agenda
to go on quietly behind the scenes . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:15:26 +1300, Pooh <rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Imo the election in USA is going to be a disaster for the rest of us no >matter which of them win.

Pooh

Clinton would be bigger disaster than Trump. She is a shameless and
devious liar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1mk20aqw9M

Trump has some potential to improve, but Clinton can only get worse if
that 's possible. She is a Saul Alinsky style Marxist. She should be
indicted and charged under the espionage act, and if any lesser
mortals had done what she did, they would be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isy0sBml4rg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbUcttdLXFo

Trump, for all his faults is not a Marxist, but he is not a
conservative either. I am not advocating or endorsing Trump, but the
next President of the United States will be either Clinton or Trump,
and if I were a US voter I would vote Trump for the express purpose of
stopping Clinton.

Bill.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 12/10/2016 6:23 p.m., BR wrote:

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:15:26 +1300, Pooh <rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Imo the election in USA is going to be a disaster for the rest of us no
matter which of them win.

Pooh

Clinton would be bigger disaster than Trump. She is a shameless and
devious liar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1mk20aqw9M

Trump has some potential to improve, but Clinton can only get worse if
that 's possible. She is a Saul Alinsky style Marxist. She should be
indicted and charged under the espionage act, and if any lesser
mortals had done what she did, they would be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isy0sBml4rg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbUcttdLXFo

Trump, for all his faults is not a Marxist, but he is not a
conservative either. I am not advocating or endorsing Trump, but the
next President of the United States will be either Clinton or Trump,
and if I were a US voter I would vote Trump for the express purpose of stopping Clinton.

Bill.

imo the best thing about Trump is he hasn't been increasing his wealth
by playing taxpayers for fools like Hillary has. It's much like here and
the differences between National and Labour.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)