The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[YOhio]

I know a little bit about chess, but help us out professor.

If this ends up with SIEQ and Wuap cluttering this discussion up by copy/pasting journal articles they pretended to read I'm gonna be real pissed at you.

[myboynoah]

If this ends up with SIEQ and Wuap cluttering this discussion up by copy/pasting journal articles they pretended to read I'm gonna be real pissed at you.

I liked your analogy. Made me laugh. Sounded like SIEQ had something he could add (doubt it's better than chess/paintball).

Write in Mitt!!!

[SCcoug]

He's not wrong.

[Northwestcoug]

He's not wrong.

It is very hard not to like and sympathize with this guy. His convictions seem so sincere. He argues for an ideal that I want America to fight for.

I also call on McConnel and Ryan to repudiate Trump!

[USUC]

This poll will most likely be shown to be an outlier in the aggregate, but this is surprising.

http://www.rabaresearch.com/

[PaloAltoCougar]

I liked your analogy. Made me laugh. Sounded like SIEQ had something he could add (doubt it's better than chess/paintball).

Write in Mitt!!!

It was more tasteful, if not quite as vivid, as this NSFW analogy from Erlich Bachman:

[YOhio]

Ha! That was good, PAC.

[Moliere]

He's not wrong.

Not entirely wrong, but he makes up stuff at the end. Trump is horrible, but (I'm a broken record) there are check and balances against what Trump wants to do. There is not checks and balances against corruption. Hillary is still the safer pick, but corruption is the worse thing that can happen to our democracy. It undermines everything that "We the People" stand for and gives back the governmetn to the elite and birthrighted. Hillary isn't going to try and do half the crap she says she will do and the stuff she tries to do, she'll fail epicly because she's a horrible leader, but I'd rather tolerate 4 years with her than 4 with Trump.

[frank ryan]

Not entirely wrong, but he makes up stuff at the end. Trump is horrible, but (I'm a broken record) there are check and balances against what Trump wants to do. There is not checks and balances against corruption. Hillary is still the safer pick, but corruption is the worse thing that can happen to our democracy. It undermines everything that "We the People" stand for and gives back the governmetn to the elite and birthrighted. Hillary isn't going to try and do half the crap she says she will do and the stuff she tries to do, she'll fail epicly because she's a horrible leader, but I'd rather tolerate 4 years with her than 4 with Trump.

Also, it's important to note that Trump would likely benefit from a compliant congress.

[myboynoah]

Ha! That was good, PAC.

All of you making the comparison to piss, clearly know nothing about piss.

[myboynoah]

LOL at people supporting the Libertarian ticket because of the Supreme Court argument. Here are your candidates, on record, talking about what kind of justices they would nominate:



http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/2...llary-bernie/3



So Clinton has to be stopped at all costs, because of THE SUPREME COURT. Trump might be better, because he may be more inclined to nominate justices friendly to a republican congress. Might.

But we can count on those ideological purists in the Libertarian party, right? They'll nominate justices who will be sympathetic to the one philosophy that rules all libertarians: limit government intervention at all costs. Right? And as an example, they name...two reliable liberal justices.



Sorry Topper and others. I suppose they will still be cool with weed.

Write in Mitt!!!

[Moliere]

Also, it's important to note that Trump would likely benefit from a compliant congress.

Well, yes, but not a compliant SCOTUS.

[YOhio]

Also, it's important to note that Trump would likely benefit from a compliant congress.

That's a really interesting point. If Trump wins and modern history held then he'd be down at least one house by the second part of his first term. Even then I think you'd be hard pressed to see a precedent where the two part leaders in congress have such a visible distaste for the nominee.

[Northwestcoug]

Write in Mitt!!!

I did, last election. But he's not running now, and now the GOP is even further away from the the party I tepidly supported four years ago. So I'm going to do my small part to keep Trump away from the presidency.

Hillary 2016!

[PaloAltoCougar]

The argument that there are checks and balances against what Trump wants to do is undercut by all the nutty things Trump has said of late, despite hiring Manafort and others who were supposed to rein him in. Especially with diplomacy, words matter, and Trump's schoolyard threats can do a lot of damage, perhaps catastrophically so, before any of the hoped for checks and balances kick in. As Commander-in-Chief, he can order all sorts of stuff without waiting around for Congressional approval.

And I don't get how Trump can capitalize on Hillary's alleged corruption, given that Trump kicked in $100K to the Clinton Foundation. Were his motives somehow purer than Hillary's? If we knew of all the palms Trump greased to get his way with his various projects I'm confident Hillary would look pure by comparison.