Its amazing that now that NSW Greens (surprise) has passed a motion saying that Trump is not suitable for office. Isn't amazing how quickly the dogma of personal views not affecting public policy is ignored when the progressives want to demonise someone. You would think that by their standards Gillard, Shorten and the Clintons would also be disqualified.

Personally I don't think Trump or Clinton is fit for office but with the dogma of moral relativism in play the people of America have no other choice.

So should a person's character come into the equation or not? If so why not with Clinton as well as Trump. The question of character certainly does not come into play when it comes to the media (especially the left). We would have almost no staff at the abc if that was the case.

Dear runner,

You have said earlier;

"Trump has more character than Shorten or Turnbull."

"Trump looks like mother theresa compared to this gutless thugs who obviously support Clinton."

"Hopefully if Trump is elected he will despose of the Government funded positions that keep dumbing down the young ones at schools and uni's where all they can do is come up with labels for those exposing their warped and failed narratives."

I note the shift away in your support for Trump. What was it that swung has you?

SteeleRedux

'I note the shift away in your support for Trump. What was it that swung has you?'

as I stated in the post Steelie neither of these people are suitable for Government. Many are in gaol for less than what both these people have done. Trump was actually part of the Democrats at one stage.

Under Trump I suspect less babies will be butchered and sold on the meat market as their would be under Clinton. I have heard unconfirmed reports that Planned Parenthood strongly support Clinton. Both appear not to have a conscience.

The Democratic Party are the ones who actually supported slavery, inequality and the KKK.
Fact. No Republican ever owned a slave.
Republicans opposed slavery against the Democrats, and fought for equality AND womens suffrage which the Democrats also opposed.
When blacks got the vote, Democrats supported the KKK.
Democrats never changed their position, they just changed tactics.
They still enslave the blacks today, only now they do so in inner city ghettos and kill their children at Planned Parenthood.

All the Hillary supporting do-gooders are being duped on the very issues they think are important but they really have no clue who the Democratic Party actually are..

What a bunch of easily lead imbeciles.
I'll wear my conspiracy theorist tin-foil hat with pride compared to the Clinton supporting morons who would happily put a warmongering liar, and a rapist in the Whitehouse all while claiming to be smarter than others.
It would be really easy to laugh at how dumb and foolish they actually are if it wasn't such an important issue.
Russians are saying vote Trump to avoid WW3.
Hillary supporters political correctness won't matter one bit when the worlds cities become Hiroshima's and Nagisaki's.

The best quote of the Week, goes to Paul Craig Roberts:
"Clearly, Hillary is the candidate of the One Percent, and Trump is the candidate for the rest of us.
Unfortunately, about half of the 99 percent is too dumb to know this."

- This sums the situation up perfectly.
Half the people are complete jellyfish.

"Suitability" is an almost irrelevant issue too btw, like asking about the suitability of QLD or NSW to hold the State of Origin sheild for the following year.
It's a two-horse race and you can't go for the referee.

There's arguments both are unsuitable, but I'm still for Trump 100%.

"Fact. No Republican ever owned a slave." - from what I can tell close but some doubt around it. Overall abolishing slavery was a big factor in the founding of the Republican Party and the so called radical Republicans seem to have been major players in the civil rights movement with by and large the democrats opposed to much of the civil rights movement.

There does appear to have been a shift during and since the Reagan era though with the Republicans moving away from their roots and the Democrats embracing a lot of stuff they formerly opposed. From my perspective a lot of the Democrat shift has occurred without any real understanding of the underlying concepts though. A range of issues show up. There are claims of at least one current serving Republican politician with off shore business interests that effectively amount to slave owning but I've not pursued the validity of those claims.

The current focus on calling out Trump's divisive comments by the Democrats while applauding women making similarly divisive comments about men being a very current case in point along with the support for the Black Lives Matter movement while ignoring actual likelihood of groups being killed by police in the USA. A range of other issues in my view display a similar lack of understanding.

At least for the Republicans there are a significant number willing to say "Not Trump" even at the risk of further electoral harm to themselves and their party.

Both sides seemed to have moved in a direction where genuine compassion or care for fair play is thrown out for the sake of ideology, a disturbing trend.

R0bert

Regardless of Hilary Clinton’s flaws, there are three things that make the choice between the two a no-brainer:

1. Clinton has the temperament to be president;
2. Clinton is intelligent;
3. Clinton is not Trump.

Nothing more needs to be said. Clinton could be a murderer and the above three points would still negate that for so long as Trump is the alternative.

It has indeed been a beautiful thing to see Trump’s campaign implode and his polling take an irreversible dive.

Armchair Critic,

Those who boast that the Democrats supported slavery while the Republicans abolished it clearly don’t seem to realise that both parties have switched from Left to Right a couple of times since they’ve both been around. When slavery was abolished, the Democrats were the Right-of-centre party. To try to pass the pragmatic Right off as the bleeding hearts, and the bleeding-heart Left off as the ones who wanted to keep slavery, is a bit much.

Well I suppose, AJ if you mean keeping a straight face while lying, selling out on the people and putting on a self righteous front knowing that you are rotten to the core then yep Hillary has temperament.

She is also intelligent in the fact that she appeals to the dumbed down masses who put personality over policy. I would not be so sure that Clinton is not Trump AJ. Her nature has been shown to be just as corrupt as yours and mine.

What, you don’t think Trump fits that description too, runner?

<<Well I suppose, AJ if you mean keeping a straight face while lying, selling out on the people and putting on a self righteous front knowing that you are rotten to the core then yep Hillary has temperament.>>

No, what I meant was that Clinton is articulate enough to speak without rambling incoherently (http://youtu.be/3yBGE80covk?t=510); I meant that Clinton is capable of being diplomatic; I meant that Clinton has some degree of control over what she says and does.

Most people can be blind drunk and still have more control over their words and actions than what Trump does. Trump's mouth alone is an international security risk.

<<She is also intelligent in the fact that she appeals to the dumbed down masses who put personality over policy.>>

That’s funny given that Trump is the only one appealing to the public’s fears and prejudices.

<<I would not be so sure that Clinton is not Trump AJ.>>

That goes back to my point though. She could be just like Trump, or even worse, but she would still be better by virtue of the three points I listed earlier.

No, Trump is not fit to be POTUS. Most of us here on OLO would be better candidates, and we're not even American.

Why would the NSW Greens find it necessary to have an official opinion on any candidate for a foreign election? Perhaps they have run out of causes, and they simply cannot keep their big, ignorant gobs shut for very long.

As Greg Sheridan said, Trump and Clinton are the two worst candidates in American history. But, Clinton represents the born-to-rule crooks that have dragged America down to its present pathetic state; Trump has fresh ideas Americans, like Australians, have been yearning for, he is not a career politician; and, if Trumps foul mouth (well, something he said 11 years ago - when Bill the Bull would still have been shagging anything breathing) is a problem for U.S voters, then they should think about the effing and blinding which is part of Mrs. Clinton's every talk, and her reference to the "goddamned" American flag.

Despite his many faults, Trump is still the better of two bad candidates.

Hey AJ Phillips,
Dinesh D'Souza researched and showed in his recent film "Hillary's America" how 'The Big Switch' is actually a lie.
They never switched; its not true which means that what I'm saying actually has merit and you should look into it, because it is a very important point to note.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu2VsZPplug

Quote - "No, what I meant was that Clinton is articulate enough to speak without rambling incoherently"
Yes but even Huma Abedin warned colleagues Hillary was 'often confused' and needed hand-holding with foreign leaders; and she wears an earpiece and has help.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320900/Newly-released-email-shows-aide-Huma-Abedin-warned-colleagues-Hillary-confused-needed-hand-holding-calls-foreign-leaders.html

"Most people can be blind drunk and still have more control over their words and actions than what Trump does. Trump's mouth alone is an international security risk."

He's not always so bad, though I accept your point.
Most of it is the media whipping up a frenzy to create talking points to keep the public focussed on rather than the emails.
You're being played, he can be intelligent and decisive too but they don't publicize those videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9msnfCR4OE

"That’s funny given that Trump is the only one appealing to the public’s fears and prejudices."
Your listening to the wrong news, plenty of people fear/oppose Hillary; even the other candidates.
Check Trumps Rally Turnouts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeHY5_oL-T0

Runner,
The Greens Party candidate in the US now supports Trump because she fears WW3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwXbPIgFWgs

I've Been pondering a response to the promoting fear comment in regard to what I've read of a recent speech by Michelle Obama and the play to women's fears. Not sure how much of what I've read was in context for her speech and how much is picked up by feminists and taken to their own spin though.

Many of the points I've heard are legitimate points but expressed in a manner that suggests that it's only men who do the hurting, that many of those men who act the creepiest are to some degree that way because of the sometimes vicious cycle of hurt or reward for the wrong things between the genders.

It's not a one way street and the following points are an attempt to put a male perspective on it rather than suggest the bad behaviour of some men is all women fault. The point is the harm goes both ways.

Men like Trump have been able to get away with their attitudes to women because far to many women will value him for his wealth, celebrity and power regardless of the person he is. Other men learn a contempt by being treated as less valuable as humans, potential partners etc just on the basis of their lack of earning power, celebrity or power.

I don't see the feminists decrying those women who value men on the basis of what they have at all let alone in the same way they decry men for valuing women primarily on looks.

I do see them wanting the same high incomes and power (the topic of celebrity is not in my view raised in the same context) often on the basis of gender rather than what it takes to achieve those things.

TBC

R0bert

Part 2

I don't see feminists condemning the women who think playing "hard to get" and other manipulative games is a legitimate part of forming a relationship (it may happen but if so the protest is very muted).

Most of the men I know would happily see the genuine abusive males put out of harms way, the rapists, the gropers, the ones who won't take no for an answer etc but we are also aware that to a point many women reward the variants of those same behaviours.

We learn from each other. Until the message is for all of us to treat the other with respect and value them for the person they are rather than what they have or how they look there can be little progress in reducing the worst of treatment of the other gender (and some people are just bad anyway).

R0bert

Armcahir Critic, this one is in my view a better cut of Jill Stein's comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7GaGVFE_Vc

No change to the context, just cuts out the middle man and includes more of her comments.

Quite extraordinary interview and thanks for bringing it up.

R0bert

You're welcome RObert.
I'm not sure everyone appreciates my opinions and content though.
Thanks for the link, yes much the same content from Jill Stein as my video - only your version didn't have Alex Jones blabbering on..
A lot of people can't stand his voice and alarmist attitude; but sometimes he has good points.
Sometimes he's just annoying.

FYI the full video is on her page http://www.jill2016.com/

I was interested in the context.

R0bert

I've helped to raise a couple of teenagers, so I'm slowly beginning to decode Trumpf. His latest is that the news media will rig the elections. What on earth does he mean ?

1. Media, especially the major sources which Trumpf has broken with, criticise him, a grave sin in his eyes [see first line, above]. Media are powerful. Therefore they would work to deny Trumpf any victory.

2. Electoral processes, the actual machinery of voting, etc., may have defects, so it may be possible to rig elections.

4. Ergo, the media will rig the election.

Hmmmm, I may need to explain Step 3 in more detail.

Joe

I'm one of the deplorables, and part of the vast right conspiracy.
Feel free to ask me any question you like and I'll do my best to help.

I think Trump means media 'influence' the election.
But the media are doing such an exceptional job the correct term might be 'steal'.

Nixon and Clinton both got kicked out of office for covering up their crimes.
You guys want to put her in despite her covering up her crimes.
How times have changed.

Bill Clinton passed the legislation back during his presidency that allowed the media corporations to amalgamate into the 6 corporations we have today.
They donate to the Clinton foundation and openly support her.
If you watch the Hannity video (the third link) on my last comment you will find out more about the media bias against Trump.
In regards to electoral rigging one of the big problems voter ID laws.
People were seen being bused around voting numerous times during the Primaries. Another thing is that the Diebold voting machines can manipulated to show a different count.
There's actually many shady ways the elections can be manipulated, as well as rigged outright, but its too much to go into here.

Have you seen this picture of your champion Hillary?
She doesn't even know what day it is.
Look at her, surprised she isn't drooling all over herself.
What a space cadet.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Crt-Yb1VYAA8PG1.jpg

And you guys think this is fit to lead the US?

Well the NSW Greens are so far south they should be living with the penguins on the south pole. Then they might get it in their little heads that the earth is not warming.
I want a moratorium on anything that comes out of the NSW Greens.
I used to eat my greens when I was young.

5 minute video: Trump's Speech to the New World Order

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYozWHBIf8g

... as Paul Craig Roberts writes: "And that is why the One Percent hate him."