Hypothetical 5-way election

The Bern thread had a post about Sanders taking over the Green Party and Romney jumping in. Won't happen but it's fun to speculate about. Who would you vote for out of...

Hillary
Trump
Romney
Sanders
Johnson

...in a 5 person race?

I'd go for Romney. If you don't want to share your vote, what percentage do you think would win it?

Supposedly the R's have enough votes to unbind the delegates - let the chaos begin.

If that became reality, I suspect the House would end up picking the next president. Remember, if no candidate wins the necessary 270 EC votes, the House picks the president. Sanders, Romney, Clinton, and Trump could all carry states and win enough EC votes to ensure the candidate with the most EC votes only has a plurality and not 270.

Turtleneck wrote:If that became reality, I suspect the House would end up picking the next president. Remember, if no candidate wins the necessary 270 EC votes, the House picks the president. Sanders, Romney, Clinton, and Trump could all carry states and win enough EC votes to ensure the candidate with the most EC votes only has a plurality and not 270.

Should replace Sanders with that Darryl Perry guy you introduced me to. Jesus that guy is a loose cannon. Guy needs to take a Xanex.

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:If that became reality, I suspect the House would end up picking the next president. Remember, if no candidate wins the necessary 270 EC votes, the House picks the president. Sanders, Romney, Clinton, and Trump could all carry states and win enough EC votes to ensure the candidate with the most EC votes only has a plurality and not 270.

Should replace Sanders with that Darryl Perry guy you introduced me to. Jesus that guy is a loose cannon. Guy needs to take a Xanex.

The whole planet needs a Xanex or maybe just a bong rip.

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Should replace Sanders with that Darryl Perry guy you introduced me to. Jesus that guy is a loose cannon. Guy needs to take a Xanex.

The whole planet needs a Xanex or maybe just a bong rip.

Maybe you're right. But for some of us it puts us asleep.

Great for international flights... horrible for Monday morning quarterly presentations.

I got prescribed Tramadol for this ankle thing I created by falling off my roof (I'm an unsafe dummy), which makes me tired as heck. Opiates never used to make me tired.... in fact I'd also feel energized. No Tramadol before anything important for me. Maybe heroin... that keeps ya ultra happy.

I can't believe someone actually filled in the bubble for Hillary "Carlos Marcello's southern la cosa nostra political liaison" Clinton.

It's true what they say. No one actually cares about the country... they're more concerned with perpetuating their personal view of what "culture" they belong to.

(This is meant to be trying to josh Roc and Bob, too, btw.... just giving a disclaimer)

xsanguine wrote:I can't believe someone actually filled in the bubble for Hillary "Carlos Marcello's southern la cosa nostra political liaison" Clinton.

It's true what they say. No one actually cares about the country... they're more concerned with perpetuating their personal view of what "culture" they belong to.

(This is meant to be trying to josh Roc and Bob, too, btw.... just giving a disclaimer)

Minus foreign policy, Clinton is the status quo...as bad as that is. Trump is a right wing populist that occasionally blurs the line with fascism. Between those two, she is the "lesser" of two evils given the status quo is better than the society Trump fantasizes about. I think Trump is trying to walk back from his bullshit just a bit, but it is too late.

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:I can't believe someone actually filled in the bubble for Hillary "Carlos Marcello's southern la cosa nostra political liaison" Clinton.

It's true what they say. No one actually cares about the country... they're more concerned with perpetuating their personal view of what "culture" they belong to.

(This is meant to be trying to josh Roc and Bob, too, btw.... just giving a disclaimer)

Minus foreign policy, Clinton is the status quo...as bad as that is. Trump is a right wing populist that occasionally blurs the line with fascism. Between those two, she is the "lesser" of two evils given the status quo is better than the society Trump fantasizes about. I think Trump is trying to walk back from his bullshit just a bit, but it is too late.

I know what you mean but even though she's the "lesser of two evils" it's barely negligible. I don't think Trump has too many opinions on most policies so it depends on who he hires to handle that. We know what we get with Hillary and that's very scary to think about, too. I used to think, screw it, let Trump get it because at least he's a wild card and he'll try to do things from a managing perspective. But I realize how dangerous that is.

I guess this is why I often don't consider there to be a lesser of two evils because even if there are differences between Trump and Hillary.... the differences aren't as great as say Palin/Alex Jones. Both are shitty.... but the shittiness of Trump and Hillary are far beyond that level and their shittiness falls extremely close on the spectrum.

I don't see why Hillary gets such a pass. Trump is a buffoon but when you get past personality the candidates are so transparently similar it's frustrating when anyone says they're going to actually go out and condone either by voting for them.

(That one I mean as serious.... but I don't think that view makes me think anyone voting for either is inferior to me. My own parents will be voting for Hillary, so.... there's that)

As long as we all agree that Hillary is the status quo, we can have a conversation about it.

I just don't see a candidate out there that can create a reality that is substantial better than the one I exist in without a massive, unpredictable and wildly negative downside risk for me. The status quo is fine. Things are fine, all things considered. I want tweaks to our current system. Not massive overhaul that may very well fail. That's why I support her.

Id be fine with Romney too. I doubt he'd do too much to be massively insane. But, given the state of our legislature for now, I don't think that any party, especially republicans who have some ultra cooky ideas, having the control over both and potentially all three branches of government is a good idea. So given those two choices I would support Hillary on the assumption that republicans would retain one of the two houses of the legislative branch. I realize that whomever wins the presidency would drag some house and senate seats with them, but Romney would mean that republicans definitely maintain control. Whereas Hillary is unlikely to have enough pull to win both the executive and legislative branch.

So, in summary, maintain gridlock over government so none of these idiots can fuck my shit up. Cause shit ain't actually that bad no matter what trumpites tell me.

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Minus foreign policy, Clinton is the status quo...as bad as that is. Trump is a right wing populist that occasionally blurs the line with fascism. Between those two, she is the "lesser" of two evils given the status quo is better than the society Trump fantasizes about. I think Trump is trying to walk back from his bullshit just a bit, but it is too late.

I know what you mean but even though she's the "lesser of two evils" it's barely negligible. I don't think Trump has too many opinions on most policies so it depends on who he hires to handle that. We know what we get with Hillary and that's very scary to think about, too. I used to think, screw it, let Trump get it because at least he's a wild card and he'll try to do things from a managing perspective. But I realize how dangerous that is.

I guess this is why I often don't consider there to be a lesser of two evils because even if there are differences between Trump and Hillary.... the differences aren't as great as say Palin/Alex Jones. Both are shitty.... but the shittiness of Trump and Hillary are far beyond that level and their shittiness falls extremely close on the spectrum.

I don't see why Hillary gets such a pass. Trump is a buffoon but when you get past personality the candidates are so transparently similar it's frustrating when anyone says they're going to actually go out and condone either by voting for them.

(That one I mean as serious.... but I don't think that view makes me think anyone voting for either is inferior to me. My own parents will be voting for Hillary, so.... there's that)

What we would get with Clinton is an extension of the status quo, albeit managed by a cut throat, power hungry executive. However, minus foreign policy, the dangers of Trump far exceed the dangers of Clinton. When you have a right wing populist that blurs the line with fascism from time-to-time, you are talking a whole different ball game. They actually are far apart. Trump is not dangerous just because he is a buffoon. Trump does not appreciate liberal democratic values or judicial independence, believes in an extremely high degree of order, preaches old school nationalist rhetoric, and is willing to appeal to physical violence.

Here is a good read. Dylan Matthews from Vox discussed fascism with five academics that study fascism. While they concluded Trump is not a fascist, he has actually moved closer to what they discuss since it was originally written.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/10/9886152/donald-trump-fascism

Here are a couple more good reads. In the first, even John Yoo, who oversaw the Bush Administration's expansion of executive power, thinks Trump is incredibly dangerous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fadam-liptak&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=1

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-seven-broken-guardrails-of-democracy/484829/?utm_source=feed

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I know what you mean but even though she's the "lesser of two evils" it's barely negligible. I don't think Trump has too many opinions on most policies so it depends on who he hires to handle that. We know what we get with Hillary and that's very scary to think about, too. I used to think, screw it, let Trump get it because at least he's a wild card and he'll try to do things from a managing perspective. But I realize how dangerous that is.

I guess this is why I often don't consider there to be a lesser of two evils because even if there are differences between Trump and Hillary.... the differences aren't as great as say Palin/Alex Jones. Both are shitty.... but the shittiness of Trump and Hillary are far beyond that level and their shittiness falls extremely close on the spectrum.

I don't see why Hillary gets such a pass. Trump is a buffoon but when you get past personality the candidates are so transparently similar it's frustrating when anyone says they're going to actually go out and condone either by voting for them.

(That one I mean as serious.... but I don't think that view makes me think anyone voting for either is inferior to me. My own parents will be voting for Hillary, so.... there's that)

What we would get with Clinton is an extension of the status quo, albeit managed by a cut throat, power hungry executive. However, minus foreign policy, the dangers of Trump far exceed the dangers of Clinton. When you have a right wing populist that blurs the line with fascism from time-to-time, you are talking a whole different ball game. They actually are far apart. Trump is not dangerous just because he is a buffoon. Trump does not appreciate liberal democratic values or judicial independence, believes in an extremely high degree of order, preaches old school nationalist rhetoric, and is willing to appeal to physical violence.

Here is a good read. Dylan Matthews from Vox discussed fascism with five academics that study fascism. While they concluded Trump is not a fascist, he has actually moved closer to what they discuss since it was originally written.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/10/9886152/donald-trump-fascism

Here are a couple more good reads. In the first, even John Yoo, who oversaw the Bush Administration's expansion of executive power, thinks Trump is incredibly dangerous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fadam-liptak&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=1

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-seven-broken-guardrails-of-democracy/484829/?utm_source=feed

I just don't think Trump knows what he's about. Which to me, makes him less dangerous than he's made out to be because he doesn't have any marriage to a particular ideology as Clinton does. Certainly he's a populist and will make it much tougher for anyone looking to immigrate to this country. I don't think Hillary is going to just be able to keep the borders open, either. The next attack or two and you'll have guys with impacted bowels and scared women wanting a closing of the borders thinking it'll help. It will be coupled with a highly restrictive gun control bill, which Hillary has made clear she very much supports even more regulation on what someone chooses to posses in the privacy of their own home)

Trump will just go with whatever.... he'll enact more gun control. They both have a chip on their shoulder and want to seem like tough guys.,... Hillary has always enjoyed war and Trump thinks because he grew up on the Upper East Side he's somehow a tough guy (kind of like that pig in a blanket, Chevy Chase).

I just don't see much difference between the two but I do know that Hillary has already succeeded in the system and already has established how to funnel money and use the taxpayer to enrich herself financially. Not saying Trump won't figure it out but up till now he's built hotels people want to go to.

I dunno, they both seem like cunts to me.

Would Trump be able to get anything through Congress? Dems hate him, half or more of the Republicans probably hate him, and Cruz would be determined to sabotage him.

Turtleneck wrote:If that became reality, I suspect the House would end up picking the next president. Remember, if no candidate wins the necessary 270 EC votes, the House picks the president. Sanders, Romney, Clinton, and Trump could all carry states and win enough EC votes to ensure the candidate with the most EC votes only has a plurality and not 270.

Yup. Seeing as this whole process has been a shitshow, i'd love to see it get as crazy as possible. What do you think would be the House's decision?

Tim Wakefield wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:If that became reality, I suspect the House would end up picking the next president. Remember, if no candidate wins the necessary 270 EC votes, the House picks the president. Sanders, Romney, Clinton, and Trump could all carry states and win enough EC votes to ensure the candidate with the most EC votes only has a plurality and not 270.

Yup. Seeing as this whole process has been a shitshow, i'd love to see it get as crazy as possible. What do you think would be the House's decision?

Why?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Tim Wakefield wrote:

Yup. Seeing as this whole process has been a shitshow, i'd love to see it get as crazy as possible. What do you think would be the House's decision?

Why?

Cuz

It kind of already is as crazy as it's been possible.

We have "elections" where we're given the "choice' between dynasties.

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama (Clinton), then Clinton.

Don't fool yourselves.... politics is a game rich people play and we're just the pieces on the board. Our "say" is limited to the few for a reason. We may have had a remarkable beginning but the operation of our nation is not remarkable in the historical sense.

So yeah, election Clinton, elect Trump elect Admiral Vermin.... nothing real will be given a chance to change because it's set up in a way to keep the machine going.

The quicker we can be invaded by a stronger, more barbaric and far more conservative (and not conservative the way we describe it here politically in America)... the quicker we can start the process over. And then over again. It's all cyclinal. No different than how it worked during the railroad barons or cotton barons or war barons. Not that I want to be invaded..... but it's bound to happen and it happens when the citizenry becomes so weak and overly sensitive.

No more general Pattons or Andrew Jacksons or George Washingtons. The next generation is generation snowflake. It's just a matter of time before someone realizes how weak we've become and decides to test us by first smacking us in the mouth. I imagine a cry and retreat to a safe space will be the first reaction. But when they're followed there the men will be slaughtered, the women will be taken as rape slaves and the children either tossed over the ledge onto the rocks or if they're lucky they'll be forced into slave labor. Like the good ol' days of the 11th century.

What a morbid tirade that was. But it's true... we've allowed ourselves to become atrophied mentally and emotionally.... and clearly any stroll through most towns will show even physically. We'll get steam rolled by a guerilla force.

Tim Wakefield wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Why?

Cuz

Mortgaging your own future potentially for lols. Nice.

If the house had to pick it would be Romney.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'm gonna wait 'til Hillary is indicted for using an email account for I make a decision..

There are people who are willing to actually take time out of their day, leave their home and put their name in support of an individual who was proud of herself for getting a 42 year old pedophile who raped and molested a 12 year old girl off on probation.

I'll say it again... there are people that desire to be apart of, culturally, a political party, that will sacrifice their own morality to get up, leave their house and stand in line just to give their support to someone that was proud in her abilities to get a 42 year old pedophile probation for raping a 12 year old girl and laughing about how ineffective polygraphs are that allowed her to "win". This is the type of person people are willing to forever tie their name to as someone they support for a position of power.

Trump is bad, Trump is real, real bad.... but these same people who are willing to support an individual that finds it funny that they can get a 42 year old pedophile off on probation for raping someone's 12 year old daughter and then call other people stupid for supporting a person like Trump.

This is American politics. It's amazing anyone shows up to the polls until you go back to your psychology training and realize everyone NEEDS to belong to something... even if that something is so devoid of any objective morality that it doesn't matter to them. Forget emails or Benghazi.... how about just her talk about sexism and then accepting money from Saudi Arabia? Forget about emails or Benghazi... how about her talk about sexism and then laughing about how easy it is to get a 42 year old who molested someone's teenage daughter? That's the type of person I forever want to tie my name to. I regret my name forever being associated with Obama for having voted for him in 2008.... but a vote for Hillary makes voting for Obama (if you ended up disagreeing with how he turned out) look like a typo on a job application.

"Lesser of two evils".... because godwin's law is inevitable... there's a lesser of two evils between Adolph Hitler and Ghenkis Khan. And people will still show up and vote for someone so devoid of morality because they just can't bare to not belong to a group.

It's why I can only chuckle when I see people talk so much shit about people who are going to vote for Trump.... and then reveal they're actually going to go stand in line and vote for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary has an expertise for flouting the law and enriching herself and family, beyond that, what has she done? I can't think of one actual accomplishment she could brag about, unless winning elections counts, but see the first line above.
You know exactly what you're getting with HRC, and it's despicable. Trump by all accounts is a worthless turd, but he has no track record to go by. People seem to project their beliefs, good or bad, onto him. I have a hard time seeing how he can actually be worse than Hillary, with a small chance he could be a little better.
That said I'm still leaning toward Johnson.

I.B. Fine wrote:Hillary has an expertise for flouting the law and enriching herself and family, beyond that, what has she done? I can't think of one actual accomplishment she could brag about, unless winning elections counts, but see the first line above.
You know exactly what you're getting with HRC, and it's despicable. Trump by all accounts is a worthless turd, but he has no track record to go by. People seem to project their beliefs, good or bad, onto him. I have a hard time seeing how he can actually be worse than Hillary, with a small chance he could be a little better.
That said I'm still leaning toward Johnson.

Her biggest accomplishment is winning the senate race in 2000, in a state when she never really lived, or least had no residence until 16 months before the election. I could be remembering wrong, though.

I'm getting back to being a jerk. I need to tone it down a bit. I'm really sorry. I just find Hillary as repulsive as Trump... without being as entertaining.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:Hillary has an expertise for flouting the law and enriching herself and family, beyond that, what has she done? I can't think of one actual accomplishment she could brag about, unless winning elections counts, but see the first line above.
You know exactly what you're getting with HRC, and it's despicable. Trump by all accounts is a worthless turd, but he has no track record to go by. People seem to project their beliefs, good or bad, onto him. I have a hard time seeing how he can actually be worse than Hillary, with a small chance he could be a little better.
That said I'm still leaning toward Johnson.

Her biggest accomplishment is winning the senate race in 2000, in a state when she never really lived, or least had no residence until 16 months before the election. I could be remembering wrong, though.

Didn't she vote yes for the Iraq War? And didn't she vote no against gay marriage as recently as a few years ago?

Those are accomplishments, no?

xsanguine wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Her biggest accomplishment is winning the senate race in 2000, in a state when she never really lived, or least had no residence until 16 months before the election. I could be remembering wrong, though.

Didn't she vote yes for the Iraq War? And didn't she vote no against gay marriage as recently as a few years ago?

Those are accomplishments, no?

Technically, I'd say her biggest accomplishment was latching on to Bill and not letting go.

tGreenWay wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Supposedly the R's have enough votes to unbind the delegates - let the chaos begin.

I genuinely want the Rs to get their shit together. We're a better country when the two major parties are functioning properly and willing to work together.

I genuinely disagree with this (sorry, Greenie, I couldn't help myself).

I.B. Fine wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Didn't she vote yes for the Iraq War? And didn't she vote no against gay marriage as recently as a few years ago?

Those are accomplishments, no?

Technically, I'd say her biggest accomplishment was latching on to Bill and not letting go.

Which is only a slightly better accomplishment than Monica Lewinsky's.

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

What we would get with Clinton is an extension of the status quo, albeit managed by a cut throat, power hungry executive. However, minus foreign policy, the dangers of Trump far exceed the dangers of Clinton. When you have a right wing populist that blurs the line with fascism from time-to-time, you are talking a whole different ball game. They actually are far apart. Trump is not dangerous just because he is a buffoon. Trump does not appreciate liberal democratic values or judicial independence, believes in an extremely high degree of order, preaches old school nationalist rhetoric, and is willing to appeal to physical violence.

Here is a good read. Dylan Matthews from Vox discussed fascism with five academics that study fascism. While they concluded Trump is not a fascist, he has actually moved closer to what they discuss since it was originally written.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/10/9886152/donald-trump-fascism

Here are a couple more good reads. In the first, even John Yoo, who oversaw the Bush Administration's expansion of executive power, thinks Trump is incredibly dangerous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fadam-liptak&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=1

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-seven-broken-guardrails-of-democracy/484829/?utm_source=feed

I just don't think Trump knows what he's about. Which to me, makes him less dangerous than he's made out to be because he doesn't have any marriage to a particular ideology as Clinton does. Certainly he's a populist and will make it much tougher for anyone looking to immigrate to this country. I don't think Hillary is going to just be able to keep the borders open, either. The next attack or two and you'll have guys with impacted bowels and scared women wanting a closing of the borders thinking it'll help. It will be coupled with a highly restrictive gun control bill, which Hillary has made clear she very much supports even more regulation on what someone chooses to posses in the privacy of their own home)

Trump will just go with whatever.... he'll enact more gun control. They both have a chip on their shoulder and want to seem like tough guys.,... Hillary has always enjoyed war and Trump thinks because he grew up on the Upper East Side he's somehow a tough guy (kind of like that pig in a blanket, Chevy Chase).

I just don't see much difference between the two but I do know that Hillary has already succeeded in the system and already has established how to funnel money and use the taxpayer to enrich herself financially. Not saying Trump won't figure it out but up till now he's built hotels people want to go to.

I dunno, they both seem like cunts to me.

Trump knows what he is about. I think you are working too hard to equate Trump with Clinton. Clinton is an incredibly flawed candidate. Trump is an incredibly dangerous candidate.

Trump is more than a populist. He is a right wing populist that blurs the line with fascism. For some reason that truth does not stick. People cannot wrap their brains around Trump's dangerous ideals. However, part of that is because we have never had to deal with a candidate like this before, so people cannot identify what they do not know or understand. In fact, this brand of populism has usually existed on the periphery of American politics, and therefore is not something taught in our schools or part of our discourse. Unfamiliarity has led to people minimizing and misunderstanding Trump.

These types of candidates - right wing populists with fascist tendencies - speak in broad terms. They specialize in being vague. Why? Because they few substantive policy positions. They are more concerned with crafting their vision of an ideal community. Fascism is not a complex ideology compared to its rivals. It preaches hyper-nationalism and violence, embraces community narrowly defined, and rejects liberal democratic values both substantively and procedurally. It's a mistake to say Trump "does not know what he is about," or "will go with just whatever." People often mistake his brand of populism, which is predicated on emotion rather than rationality and often comes with unpredictable leadership, with having no fixed positions. It's a big mistake to be making.

Here is something interesting: I know a large number of academics who unequivocally dislike Trump and Clinton and support neither. All of them plan to vote for a third party candidate with one exception: if the polls show Clinton and Trump in a neck-and-neck race, many of them will vote for Clinton. Why? While they all dislike her as a candidate, and some altogether dislike her brand of politics, they have a full understanding of what Trump represents. They have an academic understanding of ideologies and strong read on what Trump represents as a candidate.

Think about what he means when he talks about making America great again. It is a reference to the past. Like all good crazy nationalists, he makes his country out to be some kind of victim, has grievances with the wold, and longs for a previous era. That era he longs for is one I want nothing to do with. It is an era where some people had to ride in the back of the bus, go to separate schools, pay poll taxes to vote, etc. Again, you're working too hard to make Trump and Clinton equals. She is incredibly flawed and he is incredibly dangerous.

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I just don't think Trump knows what he's about. Which to me, makes him less dangerous than he's made out to be because he doesn't have any marriage to a particular ideology as Clinton does. Certainly he's a populist and will make it much tougher for anyone looking to immigrate to this country. I don't think Hillary is going to just be able to keep the borders open, either. The next attack or two and you'll have guys with impacted bowels and scared women wanting a closing of the borders thinking it'll help. It will be coupled with a highly restrictive gun control bill, which Hillary has made clear she very much supports even more regulation on what someone chooses to posses in the privacy of their own home)

Trump will just go with whatever.... he'll enact more gun control. They both have a chip on their shoulder and want to seem like tough guys.,... Hillary has always enjoyed war and Trump thinks because he grew up on the Upper East Side he's somehow a tough guy (kind of like that pig in a blanket, Chevy Chase).

I just don't see much difference between the two but I do know that Hillary has already succeeded in the system and already has established how to funnel money and use the taxpayer to enrich herself financially. Not saying Trump won't figure it out but up till now he's built hotels people want to go to.

I dunno, they both seem like cunts to me.

Trump knows what he is about. I think you are working too hard to equate Trump with Clinton. Clinton is an incredibly flawed candidate. Trump is an incredibly dangerous candidate.

Trump is more than a populist. He is a right wing populist that blurs the line with fascism. For some reason that truth does not stick. People cannot wrap their brains around Trump's dangerous ideals. However, part of that is because we have never had to deal with a candidate like this before, so people cannot identify what they do not know or understand. In fact, this brand of populism has usually existed on the periphery of American politics, and therefore is not something taught in our schools or part of our discourse. Unfamiliarity has led to people minimizing and misunderstanding Trump.

These types of candidates - right wing populists with fascist tendencies - speak in broad terms. They specialize in being vague. Why? Because they few substantive policy positions. They are more concerned with crafting their vision of an ideal community. Fascism is not a complex ideology compared to its rivals. It preaches hyper-nationalism and violence, embraces community narrowly defined, and rejects liberal democratic values both substantively and procedurally. It's a mistake to say Trump "does not know what he is about," or "will go with just whatever." People often mistake his brand of populism, which is predicated on emotion rather than rationality and often comes with unpredictable leadership, with having no fixed positions. It's a big mistake to be making.

Here is something interesting: I know a large number of academics who unequivocally dislike Trump and Clinton and support neither. All of them plan to vote for a third party candidate with one exception: if the polls show Clinton and Trump in a neck-and-neck race, many of them will vote for Clinton. Why? While they all dislike her as a candidate, and some altogether dislike her brand of politics, they have a full understanding of what Trump represents. They have an academic understanding of ideologies and strong read on what Trump represents as a candidate.

Think about what he means when he talks about making America great again. It is a reference to the past. Like all good crazy nationalists, he makes his country out to be some kind of victim, has grievances with the wold, and longs for a previous era. That era he longs for is one I want nothing to do with. It is an era where some people had to ride in the back of the bus, go to separate schools, pay poll taxes to vote, etc. Again, you're working too hard to make Trump and Clinton equals. She is incredibly flawed and he is incredibly dangerous.

I don't think Trump is stupid. I do think he's an opportunist and is being as vague as possible not because he is some evil genius but because "success" is so close if he can just pull through the rest he can figure out.

Maybe I am working too hard to equate them but I don't feel it's work at all. I feel they are both equally dangerous. I don't think Trump is going to be able to screw anything up anymore than Hillary could. Continuing the status quo seems like the better option, but is it? Is continuing on this road we're on really that great of an idea? Change is scary.... but I just can't see any positives staying on the same road we've been on other than we know where we're going (which is not a good place).

I'm not academic but even with a gun to my momma's head I'd tell the gunman to flip a coin. I really don't think either Trump or Hillary can do any worse than the other. I could be very wrong and I'm interested to know why I'm wrong (genuinely), so I await that response.... but it's really how I see it. I see them as Coke and Pepsi.... with Pepsi advertising themselves like the Kool Aid Man so everyone thinks Pepsi is just so off the way because of the way they present themselves.

To me voting D or R, you might as well become a fan of Geico's quarterly profits (without owning stocks) or Prudential's earnings. It's like being a fan of pro sports.... you're cheering on someone else's personal war chest without getting anything out of it yourself besides some emotional attachment to a "team" your endorphins respond positively to when they "win".

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Trump knows what he is about. I think you are working too hard to equate Trump with Clinton. Clinton is an incredibly flawed candidate. Trump is an incredibly dangerous candidate.

Trump is more than a populist. He is a right wing populist that blurs the line with fascism. For some reason that truth does not stick. People cannot wrap their brains around Trump's dangerous ideals. However, part of that is because we have never had to deal with a candidate like this before, so people cannot identify what they do not know or understand. In fact, this brand of populism has usually existed on the periphery of American politics, and therefore is not something taught in our schools or part of our discourse. Unfamiliarity has led to people minimizing and misunderstanding Trump.

These types of candidates - right wing populists with fascist tendencies - speak in broad terms. They specialize in being vague. Why? Because they few substantive policy positions. They are more concerned with crafting their vision of an ideal community. Fascism is not a complex ideology compared to its rivals. It preaches hyper-nationalism and violence, embraces community narrowly defined, and rejects liberal democratic values both substantively and procedurally. It's a mistake to say Trump "does not know what he is about," or "will go with just whatever." People often mistake his brand of populism, which is predicated on emotion rather than rationality and often comes with unpredictable leadership, with having no fixed positions. It's a big mistake to be making.

Here is something interesting: I know a large number of academics who unequivocally dislike Trump and Clinton and support neither. All of them plan to vote for a third party candidate with one exception: if the polls show Clinton and Trump in a neck-and-neck race, many of them will vote for Clinton. Why? While they all dislike her as a candidate, and some altogether dislike her brand of politics, they have a full understanding of what Trump represents. They have an academic understanding of ideologies and strong read on what Trump represents as a candidate.

Think about what he means when he talks about making America great again. It is a reference to the past. Like all good crazy nationalists, he makes his country out to be some kind of victim, has grievances with the wold, and  longs for a previous era. That era he longs for is one I want nothing to do with. It is an era where some people had to ride in the back of the bus, go to separate schools, pay poll taxes to vote, etc. Again, you're working too hard to make Trump and Clinton equals. She is incredibly flawed and he is incredibly dangerous.

I don't think Trump is stupid. I do think he's an opportunist and is being as vague as possible not because he is some evil genius but because "success" is so close if he can just pull through the rest he can figure out.

Maybe I am working too hard to equate them but I don't feel it's work at all. I feel they are both equally dangerous. I don't think Trump is going to be able to screw anything up anymore than Hillary could. Continuing the status quo seems like the better option, but is it? Is continuing on this road we're on really that great of an idea? Change is scary.... but I just can't see any positives staying on the same road we've been on other than we know where we're going (which is not a good place).

I'm not academic but even with a gun to my momma's head I'd tell the gunman to flip a coin. I really don't think either Trump or Hillary can do any worse than the other. I could be very wrong and I'm interested to know why I'm wrong (genuinely), so I await that response.... but it's really how I see it. I see them as Coke and Pepsi.... with Pepsi advertising themselves like the Kool Aid Man so everyone thinks Pepsi is just so off the way because of the way they present themselves.

To me voting D or R, you might as well become a fan of Geico's quarterly profits (without owning stocks) or Prudential's earnings. It's like being a fan of pro sports.... you're cheering on someone else's personal war chest without getting anything out of it yourself besides some emotional attachment to a "team" your endorphins respond positively to when they "win".

You are 100% incorrect and taking a very naive approach to Trump.

Sorry for being so blunt, but people do not realize what is at stake with a Trump presidency (plus I am very passionate about this stuff).

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I don't think Trump is stupid. I do think he's an opportunist and is being as vague as possible not because he is some evil genius but because "success" is so close if he can just pull through the rest he can figure out.

Maybe I am working too hard to equate them but I don't feel it's work at all. I feel they are both equally dangerous. I don't think Trump is going to be able to screw anything up anymore than Hillary could. Continuing the status quo seems like the better option, but is it? Is continuing on this road we're on really that great of an idea? Change is scary.... but I just can't see any positives staying on the same road we've been on other than we know where we're going (which is not a good place).

I'm not academic but even with a gun to my momma's head I'd tell the gunman to flip a coin. I really don't think either Trump or Hillary can do any worse than the other. I could be very wrong and I'm interested to know why I'm wrong (genuinely), so I await that response.... but it's really how I see it. I see them as Coke and Pepsi.... with Pepsi advertising themselves like the Kool Aid Man so everyone thinks Pepsi is just so off the way because of the way they present themselves.

To me voting D or R, you might as well become a fan of Geico's quarterly profits (without owning stocks) or Prudential's earnings. It's like being a fan of pro sports.... you're cheering on someone else's personal war chest without getting anything out of it yourself besides some emotional attachment to a "team" your endorphins respond positively to when they "win".

You are 100% incorrect and taking a very naive approach to Trump.

Sorry for being so blunt, but people do not realize what is at stake with a Trump presidency (plus I am very passionate about this stuff).

I'm willing to accept that I am wrong and naive. But what is Trump going to be able to accomplish that is so dangerous that Hillary is not going to be able to accomplish that is dangerous..... and perhaps what Hillary has already accomplished that is dangerous (with regards to Saudi Arabia, Clinton Foundation, etc)?

I always talk smack about the system we have but one of the great things the founders did was make sure there's checks and balances. R's and D's together hate Trump. I don't see what he's going to be able to pass through the gauntlet of people that can't wait until the next election for an adult to get back in office.

xsanguine wrote:I always talk smack about the system we have but one of the great things the founders did was make sure there's checks and balances. R's and D's together hate Trump. I don't see what he's going to be able to pass through the gauntlet of people that can't wait until the next election for an adult to get back in office.

Buried in many of our previous threads was my claim that Cruz was more dangerous than Trump. I argued Cruz was more dangerous not just because of his ideological values, but because I felt a R controlled Congress - in particular a R controlled Senate - would go along with Cruz's nutty appointments and legislative agenda. I maintained, like you, that Trump is so disliked by both Rs and Ds that Congress and the Judiciary would box him in and control his lunacy.

After Cruz suspended his campaign, Trump went full lunatic. His racist rant against the federal judge overseeing the Trump U case was about so much more. Part of separation of powers and checks and balances is judicial independence. Trump showed he has no respect for rule of law or judicial independence when he lashed out against that judge. Then I began to think. Over the last several decades Congress has ceded a lot of power to the executive. Can they take that power back? You should read the second link I posted in post #12. It makes a couple of good points about this:

“You would like a president with some idea about constitutional limits on presidential powers, on congressional powers, on federal powers,” Professor Barnett said, “and I doubt he has any awareness of such limits.”

Republican leaders say they are confident that Mr. Trump would respect the rule of law if elected. “He’ll have a White House counsel,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, told Hugh Hewitt, the radio host, on Monday. “There will be others who point out there’s certain things you can do and you can’t do.”

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who has become a reluctant supporter of Mr. Trump, said he did not believe that the nation would be in danger under his presidency.

“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Mr. McCain said. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania.”

“Our institutions, including the press, are still strong enough to prevent” unconstitutional acts, he said.

Mr. Post said that view was too sanguine, given the executive branch’s practical primacy. “The president has all the power with respect to enforcing the law,” he said. “There’s only one of those three branches that actually has the guns in its hands, and that’s the executive.”

Beyond that, Trump would be nominating a federal court judge. This is a big deal given expected challenges from Congress to a Trump presidency. So long as the person is satisfactorily conservative, the Senate will likely confirm. But what role will that person play in eventual Congressional challenges to a Trump presidency? Finally, remember that "executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," and the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States." Together these Article II clauses are both vague and empowering, a very dangerous combination that has allowed the modern president to grow the power of the executive well beyond the intentions of the framers. When this is added to recent presidents interpreting victories as mandates from the people - something the framers sought to avoid with the electoral college - Trump becomes more empowered by citing his actions as a reflection of the will of the people. Now you have a right wing populist with streaks of fascism claiming the people as his source of power. Seriously not good, X.

The nominating the federal court judge does scare me, no doubt about that. But I also think... Hillary nominating one is just as scary to me. Trump is a wild card, I don't know what ideology he would use in choosing one. Hillary, I have a pretty good idea... and I don't like it.

But I see your point. It would be more difficult than I'm giving credit for the R's to go that hardcore in opposing everything of Trump.

I'm not trying to continue this part of the argument (so don't feel the need to respond to it) because I'm just going to repeat myself here; but I don't feel Trump is as ideologically principled as Hillary. I think he craves power, I believe that's where his ambitions fizzle out. Hillary has the power, she certainly craves more... but seems to crave more to leave a legacy all her own. And her legacy scares the shit out of me just as much as Trump; which is why I equate them. But again, I see your point in why Trump is potentially worse in that regard.

How is Clinton nominating a judge more scary? Does she hate freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or an independent media? Remember that long before the violent protesters showed up on the scene at Trump rallies, Trump talked about punching peaceful protesters in the face and carrying them out on stretchers. Trump has talked about shutting down parts of the Internet - which is just another form of censorship - in the name of national security. Trump has talked about loosening libel laws so the media can be easily sued, which would make it harder to be critical of a Trump administration and eliminate what watchdog media we have left.  

Does Clinton talk about rounding people up like Trump? Seriously. Trump wants to round people up. That right there is incredibly dangerous language. Has Clinton implied security is more important that search and seizure laws like Trump? Does Clinton want to build a wall and bankrupt the country because of imaginary boarder problems? Does Clinton target people based on religion, race, or ethnicity and threaten them with (you're going to love this) sanctioned violence?

Clinton is a threat to the 2nd Amendment. A big threat. I get that. It is not lost on me. Trump is a threat the everything else. I have said it before: it is ironic that Trump is such a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd Amendment exists out of fear for people like Trump. Overall, I think you are hitting a wall and cannot see the danger that is Trump. As I said before, one is flawed and one is dangerous. Not the same thing.

Turtleneck wrote:How is Clinton nominating a judge more scary? Does she hate freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or an independent media? Remember that long before the violent protesters showed up on the scene at Trump rallies, Trump talked about punching peaceful protesters in the face and carrying them out on stretchers. Trump has talked about shutting down parts of the Internet - which is just another form of censorship - in the name of national security. Trump has talked about loosening libel laws so the media can be easily sued, which would make it harder to be critical of a Trump administration and eliminate what watchdog media we have left.  

Does Clinton talk about rounding people up like Trump? Seriously. Trump wants to round people up. That right there is incredibly dangerous language. Has Clinton implied security is more important that search and seizure laws like Trump? Does Clinton want to build a wall and bankrupt the country because of imaginary boarder problems? Does Clinton target people based on religion, race, or ethnicity and threaten them with (you're going to love this) sanctioned violence?

Clinton is a threat to the 2nd Amendment. A big threat. I get that. It is not lost on me. Trump is a threat the everything else. I have said it before: it is ironic that Trump is such a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd Amendment exists out of fear for people like Trump. Overall, I think you are hitting a wall and cannot see the danger that is Trump. As I said before, one is flawed and one is dangerous. Not the same thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but she (along with almost every politician) voted for the Iraq War. Opposed gay marriage up until very recently, and has stated she woudl like to restrict the 2nd amendment. Now this can only come off as sexist/misogynist but to me it's just a fact of the sexes.... women often seem more anti-gun then men. So I feel she would work harder than normal to restrict constitutional rights of that nature than a man who just craves power for power's sake.

No, Clinton does not say any of those things. But Clinton also tends to say whatever is best depending on who she's speaking to. She would never utter her real beliefs. I mean, just listen to her give a speeech in Massapequa and then a speech in Little Rock with the accent change. I don't trust her and feel she is just as much of an authoritarian as Trump, based on previous actions, than Trump's loud mouth spewing of nonesense.

I honestly think Trump would naturally be a threat to the 2nd amendment but once he realized he has to play to the baser he'd leave it alone. Or maybe he wouldn't and would cave because he's such a great "negotiator".

I get your point. I guess when I hear lesser of two evils.... even though with both evils you'd never leave them alone with your kids... I think that one is somehow worth a vote over the other. We live in a nation where we can write in candidates. I think that would be far more principled a move than voting for Hillary as a "lesser of two evils".

That game just perpetuates itself. If Trump gets in... he fucks shit up for 4 years.... it gets fixed 4 years after that. He's not going to eliminate the universe. Whatever damage he does can be underdone. Once Hillary gets a hold of the 2nd amendment... we're not getting those rights back. Once they're gone, they're gone.

It'd be one thing if it were Obama vs. Trump. Now we both know how I feel about Obama. I don't like him and have even felt lied to by him despite having voted for him in 2012. But I don't see Obama as such an bad person as Hillary. I think Obama likes the game and maybe the attention. There is some sort of void in Hillary. Something viscerally wrong with the way Hillary's brain works with regards to the real world. She reminds me of Palin but so seasoned in politics knows not to say certain things.