JOHN DICKERSON: In advance of the debates, the Clinton team is pushing the idea that Donald Trump is too risky to be president. You had some interesting finding there about this idea of risk and Donald Trump. Explain that.
ANTHONY SALVANTO, CBS NEWS ELECTIONS DIRECTOR: Right. Well, both candidates, to some extent, are described as risky among a number of other descriptions that voters use. Trump, in particular, but you notice even his voters say that he is risky. Well, that’s not necessarily a bad thing for them. And the reason is, they want change. They want change -- political change and cultural change and economic change, so they’re willing to tolerate some risk in order to get the change that they want.
२६ सप्टेंबर, २०१६
Is "too risky" a good argument against Trump?
Consider this colloquy from yesterday's "Face the Nation":
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३३ टिप्पण्या:
Too risky is the best argument against Trump.
Maybe it's the only argument.
Hillary is a sure thing. She is sure to finish us off as an independent Republic under Constituional Covenant and laws and instead join us into the Global Hegemony under the king picked buy the super wealthy whom she worships.
Like Farage, Trump will lead us in a fight to protect our nation state against that evil One World vision.
As I see it, Trump's greatest talent is his ability to manage risk. It's what successful entrepreneurs do.
Anything to keep people from talking about the fbi investigation and the Friday document dumps. The latest dump shows that the FBI gave immunity to 5 top aids, that Obama used the system knowingly, and never had any intention of charging Hillary.
This election is about whether we become a permanent progressive aristocracy or we try to keep our republic.
I've been reading Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow.
Kahneman points out something that is well know in decision theory: people are loss-averse. This is what the "too risky" argument tries to leverage. However, in "lose-lose" situations, people will take the larger risk. For example, if you have a choice between losing $1000 vs. a 90% chance of losing $1500 and a 10% chance of losing nothing, people will take the chance.
"Risky Scheme" used to be the Democrats' go-to insult (after "Racist!" of course).
The amazing thing is - and I can't believe I'm still hearing this today - is that some people want the country to go in the same direction it is going today.
Foreign policy, economy, social unrest, military corruption, state corruption, state of social programs....
I can't think of any reason why a citizen would look at the current state of affairs that a President sets direction on and say, "I want someone who most resembles the current president"
P.s. The economy is at near "full employment" yet wages haven't risen and we have 3.3% FEWER people today employed than in 2006 (over the age of 16). To put that in perspective, in Jan 2006 the unemployment rate was 4.7%. Today the official rate is 4.9%. Yet we have about 8 million fewer workers and our population increased by 40 million.
The only way Clinton/Obama have "managed risk" is by corrupting the major institutions of government to ignore their crimes and subvert the Constitution. The only risk they care about is losing power, while allowing risk to expand almost out of control around the globe.
Hillary represents what enlisted men know---or at least express; "Same sh@t different day". Hillary represents more of the same. And for many Americans, a double helping of more of the same isn't going to cut it.
Obama's slogan was Hope and Change. You didn't hear these people talking about Obama's qualifications and they didn't worry about the accompanying risk.
Exactly. The status quo, is sure death. Hillary is sure death, same as Obama was sure death to Blacks in America. Trump is the possibility of being great again.
We need the way it was before FDR. When America was great, and not the imperialist invasion army we are today. Not the police state of the Obama administration where being black in public remains a capital crime. The 1960's era Obama loves, with whites on one side and blacks on the other, is sure death. His being a mulatto will never allow him to appreciate the suffering of black people. His wife knows nothing of how black people live. She was born into the middle-class, and never left her block growing up.
American Society in the 50's and 60's was racist, and not a good place to be if you were Asian or Black, but at least there was no Gestapo.
With Obama, we have that racist era squared with the police discarding their billy-clubs and instead shooting their way to Obama's and Hillary's racist dreams with automatic weapons.
All this black killing by police, and their gangs in Chicago, is a policy of Obama, Clinton, and Emanuel (their step-child).
America can't be great again with this racist president and any of his followers.
The big risk of losing the executive branch, for the Clinton machine and the Dem party in general, is that somebody might do a real investigation.
If that happens there will be Republicans going down as well.
The American Revolution that lead to our independence was risky.
Ramping up the arms race against the Soviets which eventually bankrupted them, and led to the fall of the Berlin wall was risky.
Building the Panama Canal and the Hoover Dam was risky.
For me it's always been a simple calculation: Whom do I believe will do the least amount of damage to the country. Given Hillary's record of known corruption and incompetence versus Trump's general business history and bombast, it's not that difficult. I've never liked Trump's personality and there's no doubt that he's a risk, but gun to my head I'll easily choose him over the decadent status quo that the Clinton machine represents.
No matter how you measure it, Clinton represents a continuation of the corruption, incompetence and general malfeasance that's been going on for years in DC. Trump is obviously a bit of a wild card. He's a loud, boorish lout who seems obsessed with superficiality, but he's not insane and I have yet to see any evidence that he is susceptible to the kind of destructive corruption that seems to have defined the Clintons over the past 40 years.
The right track/wrong track data has been in Trump's favor the entire campaign since he announced his run. It is why he ran roughshod over the other Republican candidates, and it is why he neck and neck with Clinton today, even after she has outspent him massively in televised ads, and has almost every newspaper and mainstream media outlet behind her campaign endorsing her while belittling him.
The media like NYTimes and WaPo just don't seem to get it- everything they are doing actually fuels Trump's rise. Their endorsements work against their preferred candidate. Clinton would have been better off if they had refused to endorse a candidate at all. Tonight, I think poor old Lester Holt will try his damnedest to fact check and take Trump down at every opportunity, and it will only strengthen Trump's chances.
Trump is risky in that we don't know if he will try to do what he says he's going to do. The media and RINO hacks will give him an anal at every turn.
Hillary, is beyond risky a sure thing of final destruction, in that we know she has her hacks planted throughout government who have covered for her every crime and careless disregard for national security. She sold access to foreign governments and as president the price will double. She will also double down on Obama's policies, open border, the 'new normal' of dependency and fewer jobs. The media will continue to cover for her and the RINO hacks will gladly give her what she wants. And maybe Bill has mellowed, but there is still a chance he will 'Weiner' the interns or assault unsuspecting female staff.
The Clintons, who love money more than anything, and those who paid them millions expecting something in return, will pull every dirty trick in the book to get her corrupt behind over the finish line.
What about the risk of Crooked Hilary keeling over in her first year?
If she has another stroke and is incapacitated, will anyone tell us? Will Huma be the next Edith Wilson?
Or, if she dies, like FDR did 3 months into his 3rd term, we wind up with Kaine who will be as unprepared as truman was to take over and probably no better.
Or she is on medication that makes her mentally unstable. Like JFK.
Or she is fine and, as several people have mentioned, simply hands us another helping of a giant shit sandwhich.
Yeah, I am happy to accept the risk of a Trump presidency. He's accomplished a lot in his life.
John Henry
No matter how you measure it, Clinton represents a continuation of the corruption, incompetence and general malfeasance that's been going on for years in DC. Trump is obviously a bit of a wild card. He's a loud, boorish lout who seems obsessed with superficiality, but he's not insane and I have yet to see any evidence that he is susceptible to the kind of destructive corruption that seems to have defined the Clintons over the past 40 years.
Nonapad sums it up succinctly.
The media like NYTimes and WaPo just don't seem to get it- everything they are doing actually fuels Trump's rise. Their endorsements work against their preferred candidate.
In the late 19th century Grover Cleveland won on the slogan "We love him for the enemies he has made." In the early 21st century, Donald Trump could do the same. The only question I have is whether the Times and the Post grasp how much the people of the United States loathe, despise, and distrust them.
Too risky is aimed at women.
I just saw Jennifer Granholm on CNN purporting to quote Trump from 2005 talking about how women shouldn't work and dinner should be on the table by 5 or there's a problem.
Do any of my lefty friends here know what she is quoting? That doesn't really sound like Trump. For one thing, I doubt his wives make his dinner.
American Society in the 50's and 60's was racist, and not a good place to be if you were Asian or Black
I disagree. I will agree on the 40s but I was living in Chicago in the 50s. Black families were intact, for the most part. Black men were working. Maybe the jobs were not great but they were not welfare. I remember playing softball on integrated teams and having lunch at a team mate's apartment where his wife fixed pork tenderloin sandwiches. I have been fond of pork tenderloin sandwiches.
When I was 18, my buddy and I hung out every Friday night at an all black tavern on the south side named "Ella Mae's Hideaway." We played bumper pool for beers. We got to be very good at bumper pool and usually won. The other guys in the tavern, all black, would line up to play us. A quarter a beer.
I never felt any hostility even though we were all drinking. and gambling.
The War on Poverty destroyed the black family and what we see now is the result.
I just saw Jennifer Granholm on CNN purporting to quote Trump from 2005
He was probably quoting old advice, then explaining how times have changed. Trump has hired women for a long time and his daughter would have been employed in 2005. That is how dishonest the media is today and that why Trump will win.
"Do any of my lefty friends here know what she is quoting? "
-- So many quotes have been made up about Trump, including media stations choosing to quote what they think he meant, that unless there's video or an original printing, I'm going with: "Fake."
This is what happens when the media goes this far in the tank. They've lost their credibility.
I remember a commentator ( don't remember who ) stating that he couldn't believe Clinton had so much opposition, because she was well within the normal parameters of politicians ( and Trump was not. )
He said well within the normal parameters of politicians as though that were a good thing.
This is not original but I note that Trump is risky in the sense of risk as a form of uncertainty.
We all know based on 25 years of observation (35+ if you're in Arkansas) that Clinton will be a terrible, incompoetent and destructive President, whereas with Trump there is less certainty, so he might be better.
With Trump, the leap has a prospect of having a parachute. With Hillary it's a free fall all the way down. What astounds me is the fact that a known grifter, criminal and traitor hasn't been summarily dismissed from the ranks of anyone being in the least bit suitable for the office of the presidency.
So, anything less than resetting the cold war is considered "too risky".
Ignorance .. I think you're looking for P.J. O'Rourke 'hate-endorsement' from NPR's Wait Wait "She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters", and I really couldn't believe it when I heard it either.
My take is very similar to other commenters here. Trump may do some things that I don't like but I know Hillary will do many things I don't like. Even on the big one - military action - people tend to forget that Hillary has a pretty hawkish side, as the adventure she and Slimy Sid cooked up in Libya should indicate. She's at least as likely to blunder us into a shooting war under the mistaken belief it could be 'managed' as Trump would from an excess of testosterone.
Politicians tell us what they think we want to hear, not what they really believe. In that sense all politicians are risky. And sometimes we fuck up, and we trust them.
"He who is not courageous enough to take risks, will accomplish nothing in life" - Muhammad Ali
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा