The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[BigFatMeanie]

From the NYTimes article maximus posted:

Peter Feaman, who will serve on the convention rules committee and has a long history with the party, including serving as Florida’s party chairman, called the talk of ditching Mr. Trump “a lot of sound and fury.”

“We’re going to ride the Trump bandwagon into 1600 Penn Ave., or into oblivion,” he added. “One or the other.”

I predict oblivion.

I vowed to change my party affiliation if Trump won the nomination and I have done so. The ends do not justify the means.

[imanihonjin]

You're right. Because Hillary has been a mediocre senator and secretary of state, Trump is a better choice, because he doesn't laugh at letting rapists go.
Oh wait, you don't vote. Why are we arguing this?

I never said Trump was better, my assertion is that neither is better than other. You give the nod to Hillary being better because she has "political experience", without much care that her experience is either negligible in terms of having accomplished anything noteworthy at best, or will land her in jail for corruption or failure to protect classified information at worst. Sound logic. This year, not voting is the correct choice.

[Northwestcoug]

I never said Trump was better, my assertion is that neither is better than other. You give the nod to Hillary being better because she has "political experience", without much care that her experience is either negligible in terms of having accomplished anything noteworthy at best, or will land her in jail for corruption or failure to protect classified information at worst. Sound logic. This year, not voting is the correct choice.

I guess I misunderstood this post then:

For those who still believe that Hillary isn't as bad as the Donald:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yo...rticle/2593571

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...e85708367.html

Something shocking about her comes out nearly every day. She is truly and awful candidate and clearly a worse person.

[imanihonjin]

I guess I misunderstood this post then:

Indeed you did....although, it was due to my ineffective communication....the "clearly a worse person" is meant to mean that while she is an awful candidate, she is even a worse person that she is a candidate. The worse person comment was not meant to be relative to Trump. They are both awful in both regards.

[byu71]

I appreciate this forum and the ability to express my political opinions without being accused of being dumb, insensitive or out of touch with our current culture.

I realize I have been left behind. I watched bits and pieces of Hillary and high cheeks Liz Warren on the campaign trial. I am thinking, this will be great for the republicans if Hillary picks Warren as the V.P. Then I am flipping channels this morning and I hear Mika B. on morning Joe say that "they are electrifyng on the campaign trail together". Joe and the rest chime in with how great Warren is.

Oh well, I have a little Indian blood in me so perhaps they won't confiscate all of my savings.

[YOhio]

I appreciate this forum and the ability to express my political opinions without being accused of being dumb, insensitive or out of touch with our current culture.

Correct. Well beyond an accusation and now just a given.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The DNC released their platform today. One section of it promises to use the DoJ to prosecute oil companies (I assume that means executives) for Global Warming Denial.

[creekster]

The DNC released their platform today. One section of it promises to use the DoJ to prosecute oil companies (I assume that means executives) for Global Warming Denial.

I guess we were happy when the DOJ pursued tobacco companies for refusing to admit the health harms of tobacco. Maybe it will look like that some years from now.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I guess we were happy when the DOJ pursued tobacco companies for refusing to admit the health harms of tobacco. Maybe it will look like that some years from now.

Although I'm not really in agreement with the Tobacco litigation, they met a demand for a legal product and I don't see why it's their responsibility to warn about the enormous health downsides -- Tobacco is a product with zero benefits, it's all downside.

But lefties are in fantasyland about oil companies and their influence on the global warming argument and how that debate has affected oil demand. On top of that, any money they have given to scientists is a drop in the bucket compared to public funds going the other way. Pie in the sky solar and wind energy hasn't made a dent, and probably never will. Nuclear could, but look at the reaction after the Japanese earthquake. If anything, withstanding such a massive earthquake should have encouraged the building of new plants.

[YOhio]

I guess we were happy when the DOJ pursued tobacco companies for refusing to admit the health harms of tobacco. Maybe it will look like that some years from now.

Ha. Sure. One of those industries was really shady about selling a harmful and addictive product. The other provides a product that every person in the civilized world consumes on a daily basis and people in less-developed countries are doing everything they can to consume more of it. It's lifted masses out of poverty, shrunk the world, changed the human condition and its effective use has been one of the most net beneficial advances in the history of the world. Even it's worse critics use about the same amount as it's most vocal advocates because oil has made life awesome.

One of the worst things about Trump is that he's taken so much attention away from the shitshow being put on by the Democrats. Hillary is corrupt as hell and had to veer super hard left so she didn't lose to an old man socialist. Now we see this double the minimum wage, free college, forgive student loan and shut down the big banks nonsense being formally adopted by the party because the rest of the country is distracted by whatever white nationalist Trump retweeted that day.

[SCcoug]

YO continues to dominate this thread.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I've been thinking about the "free college" plank of Bernie platform and, slap me now, I'm beginning to think it's not that bad of an idea. Long before my time, society felt it was necessary to equip everyone with a "free" K-12 education. Does anyone think that was a bad idea?

For much of the 20th Century, that level of education was sufficient to enable one to provide for oneself and one's family. But in the information age, that level of education is proving to be insufficient for most. The jobs that have gone offshore aren't the plum skill positions; they're the line worker jobs that pay minimally and which won't be coming back, despite Trump's goofball promises. Instead, we need more engineers, coders, designers, and others with training beyond high school.

Aren't we approaching a time when such training becomes as important to society as a K-12 education was thought to be a century ago?

I'm still not cancelling anyone's student loans, though.

[old_gregg]

I've been thinking about the "free college" plank of Bernie platform and, slap me now, I'm beginning to think it's not that bad of an idea. Long before my time, society felt it was necessary to equip everyone with a "free" K-12 education. Does anyone think that was a bad idea?

For much of the 20th Century, that level of education was sufficient to enable one to provide for oneself and one's family. But in the information age, that level of education is proving to be insufficient for most. The jobs that have gone offshore aren't the plum skill positions; they're the line worker jobs that pay minimally and which won't be coming back, despite Trump's goofball promises. Instead, we need more engineers, coders, designers, and others with training beyond high school.

Aren't we approaching a time when such training becomes as important to society as a K-12 education was thought to be a century ago?

I'm still not cancelling anyone's student loans, though.

sure, if a requirement for the subsidized education is that the student learn engineering, coding, design, or some other useful training.

[PaloAltoCougar]

sure, if a requirement for the subsidized education is that the student learn engineering, coding, design, or some other useful training.

That's an interesting point. While I value the importance of a liberal arts education, there's a lot of potential for wasteful navel-gazing. We impose certain minimum standards on what a kid has to study for a diploma; I'd consider something similar, albeit more advanced, for college. We'd also have to be wary of all the Corinthian Colleges and Trump Universities--no soup for them.

[YOhio]

I've been thinking about the "free college" plank of Bernie platform and, slap me now, I'm beginning to think it's not that bad of an idea. Long before my time, society felt it was necessary to equip everyone with a "free" K-12 education. Does anyone think that was a bad idea?

For much of the 20th Century, that level of education was sufficient to enable one to provide for oneself and one's family. But in the information age, that level of education is proving to be insufficient for most. The jobs that have gone offshore aren't the plum skill positions; they're the line worker jobs that pay minimally and which won't be coming back, despite Trump's goofball promises. Instead, we need more engineers, coders, designers, and others with training beyond high school.

Aren't we approaching a time when such training becomes as important to society as a K-12 education was thought to be a century ago?

I'm still not cancelling anyone's student loans, though.

I'd be fine with a state waiving jr/sr year tuition at a state school for students that graduate from a community college with a GPA north of 3.0. This pretty much happens today in most states but whiny millennials just want it all to go away but only for them (like if you give a cat a cupcake).