Unfortunately, this leaves me with no way to distinguish between genuinely alarming sentiments and exaggerations. I can't support blurring that line.

For example, you can say that Trump didn't really mean you should vote twice, and perhaps he didn't. On the other hand, that isn't stopping some of his supporters from voting twice. So did he mean it? Or is he just accidentally encouraging it because some people are taking him literally? Either way is bad.

Trump's staff didn't kick the guy chanting "Jew-S-A" out of his rally. Conway says she would have kicked him out, which is nice, but nobody on the ground did it. Does that mean Trump thinks the chanter was just over-exaggerating his racism? Would it be OK for Trump to chant the same thing, since we're not supposed to take him literally?

I think it's preferable if people running for President make it clear when they're being sincere.

Except that he never actually said voters should vote twice, he was implying that his opponents do, and the quote was 100% completely twisted by the media: http://www.mediaite.com/online/cnn-screws-up-says-trump-enco...

Unfortunately, this type of media attack on Trump, whatever you think of him, is common, and it makes people think twice about the credibility of the media and how they're pushing Clinton so very hard.

Furthermore, it seems like a really bad idea for people to base their voting decisions on what "supporters" of a candidate are doing, especially given that we've seen hard evidence of paid infiltrators agitating as fake supporters in order to make candidates look bad.

You do realize that people are specifically voting against the ideology that backs your opinion, right? People aren't voting for Trump because he's racist or sexist; they are voting for Trump because of the ideology behind moral-elitist people like you.

Wait, they're voting for Trump to spite moral elitists, not because Trump will make america great again? That's their whole motivation - not trade deficit, not immigration, not the economy, not jobs -- but to vote against moral-elitist people like GP? Holy shit, that absolutely crushes the credibility of Trump and all of his supporters. Wow.

So how do I tell what his actual positions are?

For example, when he says that vaccinations and doctors cause autism [1], how can I tell if he really believes that (which has bad implications for public health under a Trump presidency), or if it is just something over the top?

Same with climate change...how do I tell if he really believes it is a Chinese plot [1] to get us to cripple our economy, or he is just saying something over the top?

If these are just over the top exaggerations for the sake of HIGH ENERGY, and his supporters understand "that these things are over the top, but they agree with the basic sentiment behind them", could you explain just what that basic sentiment is?

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-comments-on...

It doesn't matter what his _actual_ positions are. Trump represents a total F-U to American politics. This is what his people WANT.

He can say anything he wants and get away with it (... and he literally has).

There is some precedent here. Berlusconi in Italy was a similar character (another a-hole media billionaire) who ended up making Italian politics a laughing-stock by grossly mismanaging the running of government. Like Trump, he appealed to fake old-timey values, people were willing to ignore his appalling behavior and character flaws and accept him like some nasty uncle-like figure.

Unfortunately, someone like Trump as president in the USA would be capable of far more damage geopolitically and economically than that clown, Berlusconi, in Italy ever could.

Exactly. From the moment I saw Trump, I was excited because it is a radical departure. As close to an independent (both parties hate him!) as is possible in the US and still win.

What specific actions do you think Trump would take that'd create so much damage? And are those things more damaging than allowing a corrupt party (see WL emails on DNC on Bernie) to win? To say hey, corruption's OK in the US, even when it's totally public? Or to get people to think that war with Russia, even if in another country, might be OK?

GP gave a couple of easy ones for you: climate change and vaccinations. Is he lying/exaggerating (not sure how you can exaggerate an absolute non-issue like vaccinations) about those things or is he severely dangerous?

Something must be done! This is something!

You're right that is a mistake.

Knowingly or not, Trump has played the media like a fiddle, giving them tons of useless grist in which to spin their wheels in exchange for the equivalent of a Billion dollars in media time which he has used shrewdly to build up his base.

I'm not sure it's Trump that played the media like a fiddle, or at least he had help from a certain Hillary Clinton whose campaign strategy (per the e-mail leaks) was to make him look like a plausible candidate and downplay the actual serious candidates. Basically, her strategy seems to have been to try and make sure what her campaign considered the worst candidate possible ran against her, and she sure as hell has a lot more media connections to pull that off with than Trump ever did.

This is the other excellent outcome. People trust the news, they eat it up. Trump has shown it to be a farce, a circus (thinking of the tape he leaked a few months ago that got him a full day of coverage about absolutely nothing). This can only be a good thing, although perhaps I'm overestimating the number of people that will actually change habits.

I think you are making two claims, but I want to make sure. Are you claiming that:

1. Trump himself leaked the Access Hollywood recording; and

2. There was nothing relevant in the Access Hollywood recording.

The Access Hollywood recording came out at the beginning of this month, so I'm not sure if that's the one you're referring to.

No I'm referring to the People Magazine interview, the one where he called back in and pretended to be a Trump employee. Washington Post "broke" the story IIRC, and the media spent a whole day with audio forensic analysts deciding "is this Trump's voice?". Trump got on interviews and says "Well it doesn't sound like me. When is this from? 25 years ago? Come on."

Here's a great cap of it at the end of the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPnMfSJ_qis - skip to 1:50. You can even hear the studio crew start laughing as they realise they've been played.

Understood on the tape you meant. Are you claiming Trump is the one who leaked it?

No, he's referring to the John Miller tape where years ago Trump called up a reporter and pretended to be a PR person so he could brag about himself.

There are plenty of people who dislike the basic sentiment behind many things that Trump has said.

Sure. And there are more than one hundred million Americans who disagree with the basic sentiment behind what Hillary says.

So... what are you saying then?

Interesting, I thought "tells it like it is" was his whole appeal. As soon as he's in hot water, though, he was being sarcastic! It was just locker room talk!

> Most of Trump's HIGH ENERGY comes from him and his supporters saying over-exaggerated things.

Imagine that you're older, let's say 40, and no longer a college kid. Do you think you will be more likely to describe Trump's statements as "HIGH ENERGY" (all caps) or "childish"?