XPost: rec.sport.tennis, soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa   
   XPost: soc.culture.iraq   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   In article <8258e45e-2f0f-41c9-ba68-9e0f1e26a110@googlegroups.com>,   
   Gracchus   wrote:   
   >On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 10:20:27 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:   
   >> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 1:13:09 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:   
   >   
   >> > Good point. I'm convinced. She has everything but the mustache.   
   >Well--maybe even that too.   
   >   
   >> So you feel comparisons between Trump and Hitler are tired, trite and   
   >alarmist but you don't feel the same about Hillary/Hitler comparisons?   
   >Hillary is power hungry (as many politicians are) but I don't think you   
   >can put her into megalomaniac territory.   
   >   
   >Damn. I forgot to insert the sarcasm/irony alert again.   
   >   
   >> Although you post that you could not vote for either Trump or Clinton   
   >because you despise both, it sure seems to me that you would pick Trump   
   >over Clinton. It doesn't seem that you are that neutral after all.   
   >   
   >I do not intend to vote for either. As I explained in an earlier post,   
   >they are like cartoon violence vs. real violence to me.   
      
   Cartoon violence vs. real violence...  I like the imagery.  It also   
   reminds me of what Jill Stein recently said.   
      
     "While it's horrifying to hear the draconian things that [Trump] is   
     talking about, we've actually seen [Hillary Clinton] doing them,"   
      
   One is so far just a talker and the other, however, is a doer: one who   
   "has been there and done that".   
      
   Some people cite Trump's "personal traits" as evidence that he is,   
   essentially, nothing but another monster we must slay.  But people who   
   talk like this are actually relating their own perception of the guy   
   as if what they say are facts.   
      
   Personally, I have a problem connecting Trump with being a racist, a   
   misogynist (who, according to my online Oxford, is "a man who hates   
   women"), or a homophobe.  How did he manage to have survived in his   
   kind of business let alone flourished in it?   
      
   In fact, Warren Buffet was heard saying that the only reason why Trump   
   has his high rises is because of his use of "leverage" or borrowed   
   money.   
      
   Surely besides having a bunch of bankruptcy lawyers working for him,   
   he still needs people loan him money.   
      
   And I can't imagine that a racist, a misogynist, or a homphobe would   
   get him too far in that direction.   
      
   So perchance his "traits" are actually only part of an act for the   
   current campaign environment into which he wanted to break and from   
   which he wants to emerge as the winner.   
      
   In fact, in my opinion, Trump is running his campaign imagining   
   himself to be a Rocky who had to figure out how to survive and   
   flourish in the kind of hostile and brutish environment he chose to be   
   in.   
      
   I think Trump might however be super naive to think he could win the   
   US presidency by emulating Rocky, given that the US presidency is a   
   political arena much larger than Rocky's boxing ring and the rules of   
   politics devised by the insiders have been so rigged by them that on   
   one hand, an outsider would never have a chance to lead unless he or   
   she becomes an acceptable choice of theirs but on the other hand, they   
   (the Washinngton insiders) have so many resources to wield that its   
   like the ammunition at their disposal to be used against an outsider   
   will never be exhausted.   
      
   While I am pessimistic about Trump's chances, I fully recognize that   
   he has done a tremendous service for taking down the myth that the war   
   on terror was ever to make America safe.   
      
   More and more people are coming to the realization that G W Bush was a   
   fraud.   
      
   It's true that the NYT is trying to put band-aids on him.   
      
   But others people have also pointed out Trump's contribution along   
   these lines.   
      
   I'm not too surprised that the NYT invented a headline story for Bush.   
      
   After all, NYT is a significant propaganda arm of the neocons.   
      
   The neocons want to project American power in every corner of the   
   globe, regardless of the costs to the American people and regardless   
   of the destruction sown on defenseless people and countries.   
      
   In particular, the NYT has unabashedly explained its endorsement of   
   Hillary for president by saying that "neither Donald J. Trump nor   
   Senator Ted Cruz of Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite   
   for military engagement abroad that Clinton has".   
      
   So, it's very clear that the NYT continues to hold on to the line that   
   the wars that have bankrupted America are for the good of America -   
   which is exactly what Trump has tried to debunk on the large stage,   
   unlike many other critics of George Bush's wars.   
      
   So, while Trump's path to the presidency is dim, what he has done is a   
   tremendous service to the country.   
      
   He exposed the Bush war legacy as a fraud, if not a record of high   
   crimes against America's core interests.  Indeed, by doing so, Trump   
   is also challenging the neocons' influence - and that's why they and   
   Bush hate Trump so much.   
      
   It's too bad that Trump hasn't done a better job exposing the neocons.   
      
   But the American people are clearly moving away from the doctrine that   
   claims that the interventionist wars and "War on Terror" have actually   
   been fought for our own good or to keep us safe.  Nothing could be   
   further from the truth!   
      
   lo yeeOn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)