[Maru]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...I just don't understand why an 'explanation' as such should ever be necessary or felt that it should be given because in voting for an anti establishment, it should be self explanatory...no justification should be needed because that anti-establishment should represent the anti of everything not so good with government and establishment and Trump just doesn't...so far as corruption is concerned, well he has no history and he has nothing to gage on so that's an unknown but what is a known is his character and how much more negative he brings with him in all of his prejudices, in his lack of integrity, in his I couldn't care less what I say/which world leader I upset, type ways...

..I'm fairly sure he'll win..(and YAY TS because he deserves lovely things with his bet..)..but it's been like a car crash/disaster in slow motion..that helplessness of just watching...

...it's been unfortunate that Hilary has represented the very worst in corruption type establishment, the Clintons are not well liked..(well probably fairly much hated in the USA in terms of politics.....)...so there has been a real focus on exposing with them because Bill wasn't a good 'front man' and Hilary wouldn't be a good front woman either...but I personally do wonder, is government corruption any different no matter who is the front, it's just that an illusion has to be created of someone with integrity in the lead and in the hotseat..this is where the irony comes really because no, no we can't have Hilary she's not a good representative so we'll have Trump instead, I mean what a guy, eh.....it's just the most ridiculous situation in world leadership sags in the whole history of, surely...

...anyways, the Clintons are just seen as the black sheep of political families, the wayward children..the USA likes to be represented by someone who is seen as representing their values..Ronald Reagan, the good old boy and his Nancy or Obama, the great family man and a man with integrity..(my feelings are that there would still have been the same corruptions very virulent during their reign because sadly it's just so deep and a part of any establishment in politics..)..but with them and similar presidents, their 'frontman' countered and hid and smoke-screened etc...it's all about appearances, isn't it...so we'll justify Trump because it's all we have, it's all we're left with...but the problem for me is that the corruption and inherent issues will still be there in the establishment plus he'll bring in extra negatives/prejudices as well..he'll bring them in with him and also bring them out in some public as well and just create new issues...he won't be a saviour because I doubt anyone could be, government corruption is too established and too determined and too in control...

...anyways, for me the 'why I would vote Trump over Hilary' things are just not relevant because people supported Trump before it became just between him and Hilary...which is the worry for me and why anything he represents should not be given validation as being acceptable...

Very good points, Ammi.

It's the same question I was posed by some people when I told them I would vote for Obama for 08'... why in the world I would vote for Obama aka why would I vote someone in who is all about social movements/grand speeches and lacks a record?

Partisanship has become the status quo in more recent elections. I remember a time when the Clintons were heralded and how many remarked at how amazing it felt to live in the US during those times... I think over the years, the Clinton family resume has been damaged significantly by scandal, all the while talks of getting Hillary into the presidency have been waiting in the wing (before she even took position in the senate). So in my mind, it had been pounded into my head from those days, that she was only taking office to be able to run for president of the US... which does still seem to be the case. Her candidacy feels very forced in retrospect. Though I appreciate and admire the work ethic and extreme professionalism she does show, at least in public.

On the other hand, I don't mind a Trump candidacy, because it's allowing some discussions of certain narratives in the background to occur to natural expose themselves and discourse to occur. Otherwise certain discussions felt and were treated as taboo by some in the public and in the media. Anyway, since 9/11, there's been a lot of partisan bickering over the years that has been exhaustive... and pandering to those groups which would help give rise candidates such as Obama/Trump... their candidacies, a result of some underlying disconnect between the people and American politics.

Obama actually had received significant resistance here from many people for his lack of a resume as far as a US presidential candidacy was concerned...like Trump, why are we voting in someone into the presidency based on a speech . One notable criticism being that he would not give straight yes/no answers to congressional votes... he would often vote "present"... if he was even available. Apparently this was a bad attendance record compared to most people in his position in Congress. Although his resume is far better than Trump's will ever be with regards to politics and delving into social issues.... but I digress.

It's a shame we were so partisan (party and public) now that we weren't able to take advantage of his experience in things such as social issues... as he did seem to carry at times, a centrist viewpoint of things (but I think his party changed him)... though I would argue, he has shown a similar record of being less visible compared to other presidencies. At least from what I have seen over the years.

The good thing you can say about Trump. Is he won't hide in his castle. You'll get to see way too much of him for the next four years... and he won't let you forget it either. I guess from that viewpoint, it's refreshing to have someone from that vantage point so eagerly involved with the people and actually properly (banter and all) representing the realistic tendencies of the platform's base. (Though I'm not too entirely sure myself what that will end up doing to the US over time--morale-wise.)