I have to wonder if the whole world isn't laughing at us

[SkyWriting]

Well, I'm not actually concerned with how I am viewed either.

But I was curious what folks would say if invited to step outside our perspectives a bit.

I'm not much concerned with which candidate(s) may or may not be "interesting" though. That's a good criteria for an article to read or a movie to watch, but not so much for the leader of a nation. I'm not looking to be entertained. Though the candidates sometimes seem to believe otherwise ...

I'm not suggesting you should do what others do either.
I'm explaining why Trumps critics are not aware that
publicity often wins the battle over intellect or experience.
They have basically paid for all his advertising.

 

[Albion]

Isn't that what you are doing now?

No, Chandra. I was responding critically about people who do a lot of that sort of thing.

I will agree, though, that I could have been more specific and made clear that the people in other countries that I was referring to were the public figures. If I have made any posts that feature cheap shots against Theresa May or Nigel Farage, you can come back at me about that.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not suggesting you should do what others do either.
I'm explaining why Trumps critics are not aware that
publicity often wins the battle over intellect or experience.
They have basically paid for all his advertising.

I agree that the media basically elects our Presidents.

 

[Albion]

I agree that the media basically elects our Presidents.

I'm not going to dispute that, but the idea that the media "basically paid for all his advertising" (as SkyWriting said) isn't correct IMHO.

It's not "advertising" to be constantly maligned in the media...and that's what is happening. I didn't hear the forum the other day featuring Matt Lauer, but I was interested to hear what the various TV commentators would say after the fact. Of course, they spent most of their time saying that Trump didn't do this or that which they thought he ought to have done, and they said he showed himself incapable or incompetent, etc. I did not hear a single one on NBC, CNN, MSNBC, or CBS mention that Mrs. Clinton was asked far fewer questions than Trump was, for example. THIS, in short, is NOT free advertising for Trump.

 

[The Cadet]

It's not "advertising" to be constantly maligned in the media...and that's what is happening.

In the primary campaign, more than half of his coverage was not negative in tone.

http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

There was, however, one candidate who had a massive amount of negative coverage in the media. Wanna guess which one?

Spoiler: Hint: not Hispanic

While this may have shifted somewhat since then, you do bring up the candidates forum:

I didn't hear the forum the other day featuring Matt Lauer, but I was interested to hear what the various TV commentators would say after the fact. Of course, they spent most of their time saying that Trump didn't do this or that which they thought he ought to have done, and they said he showed himself incapable or incompetent, etc. I did not hear a single one on NBC, CNN, MSNBC, or CBS mention that Mrs. Clinton was asked far fewer questions than Trump was, for example.

One thing you'll notice: Trump didn't get a whole lot of follow-up question on absurdities or clear lies that he has repeated numerous times. Things like his support for the Iraq war or the Libya intervention, for example, or his claim that Obama was "worse than Putin". Lauer did, however, hammer Clinton on her email server - six of the first seven questions had to do with that exact topic. It was pretty much exactly the kind of biased and unfair treatment republicans usually claim their candidates get.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not going to dispute that, but the idea that the media "basically paid for all his advertising" (as SkyWriting said) isn't correct IMHO.

It's not "advertising" to be constantly maligned in the media...and that's what is happening. I didn't hear the forum the other day featuring Matt Lauer, but I was interested to hear what the various TV commentators would say after the fact. Of course, they spent most of their time saying that Trump didn't do this or that which they thought he ought to have done, and they said he showed himself incapable or incompetent, etc. I did not hear a single one on NBC, CNN, MSNBC, or CBS mention that Mrs. Clinton was asked far fewer questions than Trump was, for example. THIS, in short, is NOT free advertising for Trump.

To be perfectly honest, I don't waste my time with watching media portrayals. But that has been my impression - that Hillary is mostly lauded and Trump is mostly made out to be a buffoon, in most media sources.

So I'm very glad you made that point, since I didn't want to appear to be saying otherwise.

Thank GOD that He is in control! We have that comfort, at any rate.

 

[Albion]

It's hard to know how readers are going to take what we write, but I didn't see your comment, Anastasia, as at all questionable. The power of the press to influence the voters is so strong that it can fairly be said that they do elect our presidents, at least when the vote is close.

But it was the previous idea by another poster that I disagreed with. The notion that if Trump is featured all the time in the news--but put in an unfavorable light because of it--that this amounts to "advertising" for him. That isn't correct to say.

By the way, I was fascinated to see the latest subterfuge played out on MSNBC. The "Morning Joe" gang made their discussion of the day be about the titanic consequences of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, not immediately recognizing what "Aleppo" meant when asked about it. The city in Syria sounded, when he heard it, like some sort of acronym (like Nafta). So they went on and on about how this man can't possibly be president and commander-in-chief if he didn't recognize that word (and, to be fair, it was then explained to him and he still didn't have much of a reply).

But aside from the silliness of them all talking, gravely, about how this changes everything, how the rest of the world is horrified at this revelation from Johnson (seriously ), and similarly absurd exaggerations, Gary Johnson is drawing 7% in the polls!

He is not going to be elected. Anyone voting for him is either making a protest vote or is a Libertarian. The war in Syria does not depend on Gary Johnson.

But then Mika, the co-host, explained what the whole ruse was about (paraphrasing)--Well then, there is no one that "we" can possibly vote for other than Hillary, is there, now that we know that Trump and the only significant third-party candidate are ignoramuses, right? How sad is that....blah blah. But now we all know for sure what our duty is. Even if she is unfit or whatever, Hillary at least knows basic stuff.

 

[Oafman]

If I have made any posts that feature cheap shots against Theresa May or Nigel Farage, you can come back at me about that.

You'll have my full support!

 

[wing2000]

Let's remember that Ronald Reagan had only been a politician for a very short time.
Mountainman

Reagan was a former governor of one of our largest states. Trump has zero experience as a public servant...except when they are on his payroll.

Let's also acknowledge Ronald Reagan would have be trounced in this years Republican primary as an "establishment" candidate.

 

[Albion]

You'll have my full support!

Now...that's actually a funny reply.

 

[Albion]

Reagan was a former governor of one of our largest states. Trump has zero experience as a public servant...except when they are on his payroll.

Let's also acknowledge Ronald Reagan would have be trounced in this years Republican primary as an "establishment" candidate.

But he didn't run as one in 1976 or 1980, so saying this sounds like something that's true only if Reagan were not Reagan.

It hasn't been said very much at all, but out of 17 Republican candidates--and even after Trump had surprised by rising to the top of the polls and winning several primaries--not a one of the other candidates tried to steal his thunder and associate themselves with the themes that had made him successful. I couldn't get over it.

A few of them tried to thread the needle by being sorta one way but not entirely so, etc. with some of these issues, but they all seemed to be afraid of stepping on establishment toes, disaffecting the big money backers, getting on the wrong side of the media or minority voters, etc.

And they all paid the price. Then, predictably, they blamed everyone but themselves for one of them not winning the nomination instead of Trump.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't normally participate in the political forum, but I see nearly all of the "most replies today" are from this area. I popped in and glanced at a few threads.

Does it ever occur to any of you that the whole world may be laughing at us? Do you ever look to past Presidents, and wonder how it came to be that Trump and Hillary are the two main choices? Does anyone out there see this as an almost impossibly ridiculous situation?

I'm asking myself how this happened, and why ...

Honestly...

I have been "judging" America as a whole ever since I got old enough to actually comprehend what elections and presidents are, as well as gained some insights into political landscapes and society as a whole. That started at around the time when Bill Clinton finished his second term.

Just about every election since then, at least one of two candidates were completely "unreal" to me. To the point that it is even unthinkable in my country that such people even would succeed in being even only a candidate to be the mayor of a no-name village with a few hundred citizens - let alone actually becoming mayor or more.

Certainly, there have been a few candidates that were truelly completely "over the top".
Trump takes the cake, off course.

And then there was miss Palin. True, she was "but" a running mate, but even so... it's completely INSANE.

So, to answer your question.... YES, I can honestly tell you that the majority of people here are absolutely laughing at the US. The US has become a (bad) joke to us.

We laugh at the fundamentalist nature of a LOT of US christians.
We laugh at the +40% of the population who think biology is a conspiracy.
We laugh at the +40% of the population who think that 4000 years ago, a dude and his daughters gathered all animals on a ridiculously large boat.
We laugh at the presidential candidates.
We laugh at the entire political 2-party system and the fact that one of the criteria to be elected is, apparantly, that you need to be rich.
We laugh at the gun laws
We laugh at how prude the nation in general is, while at the same time being the largest producer of pornographic media
We laugh at the complete lack of a proper universal health care plan

It's like the US has become a parody of itself.

There is a LOT to laugh about. But at the same time, it is some kind of "nervous laughter" as well. Because none of this is actually really funny. All of this is pretty scary.


All of it together, leads us to believe that it is only a matter of time before a full blown idiot (like Trump) actually succeeds in winning the white house. And such a clown would actually have access to the nuclear codes and be able to launch nuclear attacks within 60 seconds, if he decides to do so. And that is a truelly terrifying idea.

The reputation of the US, is not what it used to be.

 

[jeager016]

We are STUCK with Hilary vs Trump and we can't change that.
I must go with one as "better" bad over the other "worse" bad.
Sad ain't it?
Ergo why we have a two party system and are blessed with
the right to vote.

 

[Nithavela]

One day you guys will get two presidents who both vow to euthanise you all, and you'll still vote for one of them because "it's a two party system".

 

[Oafman]

Dogma makes a good point; Palin was an even more ridiculous candidate than Trump.

And while she was standing for a lower office, the idea is that the VP can step up if required.

Trump may be a hotheaded nativist demagogue, and many other things (almost all of which are negative!) but at least he isn't stupid.

The same cannot be said of Sarah Palin, who quite obviously doesn't have anything close to the level of intelligence needed for president. Or indeed any leadership position!

 

[bhsmte]

Dogma makes a good point; Palin was an even more ridiculous candidate than Trump.

And while she was standing for a lower office, the idea is that the VP can step up if required.

Trump may be a hotheaded nativist demagogue, and many other things (almost all of which are negative!) but at least he isn't stupid.

The same cannot be said of Sarah Palin, who quite obviously doesn't have anything close to the level of intelligence needed for president. Or indeed any leadership position!

I was leaning towards mccain, until he chose palin. I would bet, many did the same and it likely cost him that election.

 

[Albion]

I was leaning towards mccain, until he chose palin. I would bet, many did the same and it likely cost him that election.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin, as you folks think of her, was almost totally a creation of the media and Saturday Night Live.

Had she been treated as an example of women coming into their own, as the governor of the largest state in the union, as a wonderful example of the party relating to women and youth, etc.--in other words, as the Hillary groupies treat Hillary--the outcome would have been entirely different.

 

[bhsmte]

On the other hand, Sarah Palin, as you folks think of her, was almost totally a creation of the media and Saturday Night Live.

Had she been treated as an example of women coming into their own, as the governor of the largest state in the union, as a wonderful example of the party relating to women and youth, etc.--in other words, as the Hillary groupies treat Hillary--the outcome would have been entirely different.

I think palin created herself, by simply opening her mouth.

 

[Albion]

I think palin created herself, by simply opening her mouth.

I guess that's supposed to be funny, right?

 

[Armoured]

I was leaning towards mccain, until he chose palin. I would bet, many did the same and it likely cost him that election.

Me too. There is a theory that choosing Palin was deliberate move to throw the election without appearing to.