The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Bo Diddley]

I'm actually with SU on this one. Trump qualified his statement, making it true. If you read it at face value, it's absolutely right. Now what he says before and after that statement, I'd put money on being false.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm actually with SU on this one. Trump qualified his statement, making it true. If you read it at face value, it's absolutely right. Now what he says before and after that statement, I'd put money on being false.

If you 100% ignore the context, then yeah I guess you are right.

[SeattleUte]

I guess some states do criminalize libel. My bad.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...state-by-state

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

If you 100% ignore the context, then yeah I guess you are right.

You mean like reporting Don was suggesting someone shoot Hillary? Is that 100% ignoring the context? It is funny how so many people are completely ok with the media handling Trump a certain way because he's an asshat.

The best thing anyone could do in this election from my view is vote for a third party or not vote. If a third party could become sustainable that might help to end the catastrophe that is a Trump or Clinton presidency in the future. If a small enough voter turn out occurred maybe it would send the same message, although I fear that might show the parties that the easier course to winning is pitting crazy buffoon against corrupt dishonesty forever.

[Northwestcoug]

You mean like reporting Don was suggesting someone shoot Hillary? Is that 100% ignoring the context? It is funny how so many people are completely ok with the media handling Trump a certain way because he's an asshat.

The best thing anyone could do in this election from my view is vote for a third party or not vote. If a third party could become sustainable that might help to end the catastrophe that is a Trump or Clinton presidency in the future. If a small enough voter turn out occurred maybe it would send the same message, although I fear that might show the parties that the easier course to winning is pitting crazy buffoon against corrupt dishonesty forever.

Although the media is in a feeding frenzy right now, and they are blowing some dumb Trump things out of context, count me in as believing he was musing on exactly that. He was joking/being sarcastic of course, but I read and heard the context. It was his wink/wink to the gun rights crowd.

[Commando]

You mean like reporting Don was suggesting someone shoot Hillary? Is that 100% ignoring the context? It is funny how so many people are completely ok with the media handling Trump a certain way because he's an asshat.

But that really was the context. Clearly a wink to gun carrying 'mericans who might have something to say about Hilary's SC appointments. -You know the "2nd Amendment people" whose remedy against tyranny is the might of arms? It might have been facetious or merely a joke done in poor taste, but that's open season in a presidential race.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You mean like reporting Don was suggesting someone shoot Hillary? Is that 100% ignoring the context? It is funny how so many people are completely ok with the media handling Trump a certain way because he's an asshat.

And what would the context be in this case? Help me understand in what context that was a remotely rational or even funny thing to say.

Trump has moved the gaffe bar so far it is insane.

[cowboy]

If the only argument for trump is his proposals won't actually happen....

But aren't people doing the same with Hillary? "Yeah, she acted like rules didn't apply to her when it involved email, but once she gets in office, she will abide by the rules governing her authority and won't overstep her bounds."

Trump lost me for good when he admitted, then reiterated he would order the targeted murder of innocent people.

I didn't see this, but it doesn't surprise me. He's a POS.

I'd rather not have a man who represents my country and leads the party I most closely identify with hold none of the values that are important to me.

Yes Hillary is bad but as P.J. O'Rourke said "She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters". Trump is an unstable, undisciplined, erratic and ignorant person. He's done nothing to earn my vote.

This resonates with me. I think a lot of Republicans feel the same way. I would too, but the SCOTUS decisions coming up still have me on the fence. Also, I'm not convinced Hillary IS wrong outside of normal parameters, only that she is good at hiding it.

It's been said before, but Trump is easily the worst presidential candidate we've seen in our lifetime. If someone can't see that he is worse than Clinton, there's not much that will sway opinion. Along with what SMR said, he winked at Russia to perform espionage and claimed that the military would follow his advice to break international conventions for torture. And that is on top of his regular demagoguery, misogyny, and racism. He and anyone else can claim his off the cuff speeches are sarcasm, but when you are running for the US presidency, words are very significant. Presidential speeches move world markets and affect international relations. You can believe everything bad that has been said about Hillary, but she still has a track record of at least acting the part. She may be satan, but she will command at least some international respect.

Hillary/Satan 2016!!!

See, I have a problem with the bolded argument. It's lazy and condescending to blow someone off by saying essentially that your position is so obviously right that it's not worth your time to explain why opposing opinions are wrong. On the other hand, I agree that human rights issues are certainly a concern when considering the thought of Trump in power. He ought to be every Democrat's dream in this regard, as his suggestion to ban Mosques and keep Muslims out is as close as we've ever come to emulating the actions of the great Democratic God, FDR, when he rounded up the Japanese and put them in prison camps.

Clinton is a horrible candidate and she is still light years better than Trump. Quite possibly the most dangerous, least prepared, most unstable major candidate in US history.

I'll give you the last two, but I think the most dangerous is debatable. One candidate could start another war, and one could lose it without fighting it by surrendering much of our sovereignty. On the subject of civil liberty, see below.

Yes it is. If it's really libel, which, 99.9999999% of what Trump is complaining about wouldn't meet the standard, it's still only a civil matter. What Trump really means is that it should be a crime for someone to ever say anything critical or negative about him. Everything he says has some element of trying to carve away at our Constitutional rights and civil liberties.

Somebody gets it.

Our constitutional rights and civil liberties are in danger with either candidate. One candidate threatens civil rights with policy, while the other would threaten our rights more permanently with SCOTUS appointees.

You mean like reporting Don was suggesting someone shoot Hillary? Is that 100% ignoring the context?

There's no defending Trump's remarks, but the reaction by the media is telling. The media have a left-leaning bias, and there is no denying it. The vast majority of reporters are Democrats, which will almost always affect the way they report an event. For the most part, I don't think it's a big deal, but it bugs me when people try to pretend the only biased reporters work for Fox News.

[Jeff Lebowski]

See, I have a problem with the bolded argument. It's lazy and condescending to blow someone off by saying essentially that your position is so obviously right that it's not worth your time to explain why opposing opinions are wrong. On the other hand, I agree that human rights issues are certainly a concern when considering the thought of Trump in power. He ought to be every Democrat's dream in this regard, as his suggestion to ban Mosques and keep Muslims out is as close as we've ever come to emulating the actions of the great Democratic God, FDR, when he rounded up the Japanese and put them in prison camps.

Sorry, but if you think Trump is even remotely comparable to FDR, there really is little point in having a discussion.

[cowboy]

Sorry, but if you think Trump is even remotely comparable to FDR, there really is little point in having a discussion.

Good one.

Your sense of humor called. Apparently you forgot to pick it up and take it with you after your mani/pedi appointment.

[PaloAltoCougar]

cowboy, I’m not voting for either candidate, but as bad as she is, there are many reasons I think we’d be better off with Hillary than with Donald. I’ll mention only a few, but I’m sure I could generate a few dozen.

Words mean something, particularly in foreign affairs. With Trump, who knows what he really means? With the possible exception of his idiotic Wall, I doubt there’s a single position on which one can’t find two sound bites from him that contradict each other. And when questioned about his changing positions, rather than address the ambiguity, or providing meaningful clarification, he responds with derision and belittlement. I have no confidence his petulant behavior will ever be reined in; there’s certainly nothing in the record that suggests it will be. There are reasons why pretty much every world leader not named Putin fears Trump will be a disaster.

I also think about Nixon’s enemies list; compared with Trump, Nixon was nonvindictive--a secure, fairminded person open to criticism. One wonders what Trump could do with the powers available to the POTUS.

I don’t think Hillary will order our military to commit war crimes (I don’t think Trump hasn’t retracted his promise to do so). And I’m sure Hillary won’t be seeking to impose huge, economy-killing tariffs on China, Mexico, etc.

For all her many flaws, including self-aggrandizing behaviors, Hillary seems somewhat teachable and open to change. Trump? He’s made clear he believes he’s the smartest guy in the room, that he knows more about ISIS than the generals, that only he can save us from our current problems, and that he can’t/won’t change the way he is. A man with such hubris doesn’t belong anywhere near the Oval Office.

[SeattleUte]

cowboy, I’m not voting for either candidate, but as bad as she is, there are many reasons I think we’d be better off with Hillary than with Donald. I’ll mention only a few, but I’m sure I could generate a few dozen.

Words mean something, particularly in foreign affairs. With Trump, who knows what he really means? With the possible exception of his idiotic Wall, I doubt there’s a single position on which one can’t find two sound bites from him that contradict each other. And when questioned about his changing positions, rather than address the ambiguity, or providing meaningful clarification, he responds with derision and belittlement. I have no confidence his petulant behavior will ever be reined in; there’s certainly nothing in the record that suggests it will be. There are reasons why pretty much every world leader not named Putin fears Trump will be a disaster.

I also think about Nixon’s enemies list; compared with Trump, Nixon was nonvindictive--a secure, fairminded person open to criticism. One wonders what Trump could do with the powers available to the POTUS.

I don’t think Hillary will order our military to commit war crimes (I don’t think Trump hasn’t retracted his promise to do so). And I’m sure Hillary won’t be seeking to impose huge, economy-killing tariffs on China, Mexico, etc.

For all her many flaws, including self-aggrandizing behaviors, Hillary seems somewhat teachable and open to change. Trump? He’s made clear he believes he’s the smartest guy in the room, that he knows more about ISIS than the generals, that only he can save us from our current problems, and that he can’t/won’t change the way he is. A man with such hubris doesn’t belong anywhere near the Oval Office.

PAC, seriously, I don't think you are very convincing in expressing criticism of her. You are someone who voted for Obama, and has expressed some objectivity about even single payer health care (about which I have no objectivity). The problem with Republicans and Libertarians is that they spout a lot of abstractions that I can wholeheartedly endorse, but when you say something to them like, "but what about all those poor with no health insurance who just come and squat in the emergency rooms?" They go silent. Since something had to be done to address that (from a pragmatic, humanitarian, and political perspective), the ACA may be the least intrusive alternative; I don't know, but I've seen no alternative proposal other than single payer.

What, pray tell, is so loathsome about her? Here is a Guardian columnist who condemns her as a "moderate":

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...share_btn_link

I assume you don't dislike her because she's a moderate. Socialist Bernie has condemned her for her husband's support for NAFTA. She has been bullied into opposing the Trans-Pacific trade partnership--which Obama supports--because Trump opposes it as did Bernie but she kept it out of the platform. She's been openly courting moderate republicans and economic conservatives. Left wing populists hate her for this and that she's perceived as more of a hawk than Obama.

Yet people react to her with emotion like I've never seen before. Is it because she's a strong women? I am quite sure that's why Trump will carry Utah. That and Trump's political death bed conversion to gay bashing and opposing abortion. The only other reason I can think of for the intensity of reaction she evokes is that she's a dynastic candidate.

[Jeff Lebowski]

PAC, seriously, I don't think you are very convincing in expressing criticism of her. You are someone who voted for Obama, and has expressed some objectivity about even single payer health care (about which I have no objectivity). The problem with Republicans and Libertarians is that they spout a lot of abstractions that I can wholeheartedly endorse, but when you say something to them like, "but what about all those poor with no health insurance who just come and squat in the emergency rooms?" They go silent. Since something had to be done to address that (from a pragmatic, humanitarian, and political perspective), the ACA may be the least intrusive alternative; I don't know, but I've seen no alternative proposal other than single payer.

What, pray tell, is so loathsome about her? Here is a Guardian columnist who condemns her as a "moderate":

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...share_btn_link

I assume you don't dislike her because she's a moderate. Socialist Bernie has condemned her for her husband's support for NAFTA. She has been bullied into opposing the Trans-Pacific trade partnership--which Obama supports--because Trump opposes it as did Bernie but she kept it out of the platform. She's been openly courting moderate republicans and economic conservatives. Left wing populists hate her for this and that she's perceived as more of a hawk than Obama.

Yet people react to her with emotion like I've never seen before. Is it because she's a strong women? I am quite sure that's why Trump will carry Utah. That and Trump's political death bed conversion to gay bashing and opposing abortion. The only other reason I can think of for the intensity of reaction she evokes is that she's a dynastic candidate.

Ha. You truly are a one-trick pony.

The real political experts (i.e, folks not singularly obsessed with the LDS church) view Trump's lack of support in Utah entirely differently than you do.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wh...rticle/2599316

How to sum up everything that is going wrong for Donald Trump? In a word: Utah.

The ruby red, conservative enclave hasn't voted Democrat for president since 1964, quadrennially rewarding Republican nominees with among their largest margins of victory of any state.


By every political measuring stick, this is a Republican state. The GOP controls the state house and executive offices, and dominates the congressional delegation.


Culturally, fiscally and otherwise, there is not an inkling of liberalism in Utah's DNA. And yet, even against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, a candidate reviled on the right, Trump has run into turbulence.

[SeattleUte]

Ha. You truly are a one-trick pony.

The real political experts (i.e, folks not singularly obsessed with the LDS church) view Trump's lack of support in Utah entirely differently than you do.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wh...rticle/2599316

Yeah, I know. That's been the meme. But the fact remains Trump is leading in Utah per every poll. I just heard the head of the Hinkley Institute at Utah interviewed at length on NPR and he said that despite all of that he's certain Trump will carry Utah. Basically, they hate Hillary worse, he said. All consistent with what I said. He's absolutely going to carry Utah, and it will either be for no rational reason from a disciplined conservatives point of view, or because he's only this week started opposing abortion and same sex marriage. But actually, he's been leading her in Utah all along--even though historically he's not opposed abortion or same sex marriage, he's a serial adulterer, he opposes free trade, he's been both for and against the ACA, he wants to build a wall, he's religiously intolerant. But he's not a woman. Why else do they hate her more than him?

[SeattleUte]

Lebowski, your continual citation to pundits who marvel at Utah's courageous opposition to Trump looks ridiculous against the reality that in the real world Utah will deliver its electoral votes to Trump. That's for sure.

Who have these pundits been talking to, Jeff Lebowski?