The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[frank ryan]

Like you, I'm not voting for either candidate. Your criticism of Trump makes sense, and I appreciate your response. I guess as I look at it, my big concern is that Hillary is just as bad but hides it better. Trump would be a disaster for all of the reasons mentioned in this thread, but I fear Clinton would be equally bad, albeit in slightly different ways.

While Clinton may be more diplomatic, my concern is for our sovereignty. What makes you believe that Clinton won't follow Obama in ceding control of aspects of our economy to world leaders through agreements like Obama has tried to do with climate change agreements, internet control, etc.?

Trump would start a trade war that would seriously wound the economy, especially agriculture. On the other hand, Hillary seems bent on the economy killing regulations, particularly on fossil fuels, that have made this the worst recovery ever. If GDP had returned to trend line as it has after every other recession, and even the Depression, it would be around $2 trillion higher, and tax revenues would be $340 billion greater.

And Hillary has less hubris? "The rules don't apply to me, and when you ask me about it I pretend to laugh and shrug it off as a right-wing conspiracy." The only difference in my mind between the two candidates' hubris is one gets made and the other ignores. Neither listen. I'm also interested in your opinion that she's teachable and open to change - can you provide an example, because I haven't seen that.


You may believe that strongly, but to state it as fact and dismiss other opinions is where I disagree with your approach. I'm not defending Trump, just not in the 'Hillary isn't nearly as bad' camp.

Gun rights are a big one. Also, liberal judges have demonstrate a willingness to erode freedom of speech (Citizens United v. FEC), multiple aspects of property rights (most notably Kelo v. New London and Babbit v. Sweet Home), our choice regarding whether we should have to buy health insurance, and school choice (Zelman), in addition to siding with the EPA on economy killing carbon emissions rules that will have no noticeable effect on climate change.

These are judges who were vetted and ratified by the Senate, and most of the cases I mentioned were closely decided. There is no way Trump could 1) get a nominee with his radical views approved by a senate ruled by two parties who both dislike him, and 2) even if he were successful, place enough justices on the court to uphold his radical ideology. Clinton, on the other hand, could tip the court, which could lead to an overruling of Heller, Zelman, Citizens United, and the court's recent block on the EPA's carbon emissions plan. Executive orders can be undone a lot easier than SCOTUS nominees.

A lot of people want Citizens United overturned-it's not a popular decision. I don't think Trump is paralleled by anyone when it comes to hubris. The effects of Trump's dog whistle racism are nothing to scoff at. He's already damaging the country with that shit. It sure seems that the Kremlin is actively pushing for him. For me, that alone is reason enough to oppose him.

Another thing that I find interesting is that those who are supporting Hillary don't seem to be thrilled about it. For progressives like me, it felt like she was shoved down our throats. I really think other more palatable candidates on the democrat side were discouraged from running. Trump though, is more like a cult leader. It's creepy. He will assert he has more political capital than Hillary.

What kind of person makes flippant remarks about their opponent being assassinated? Or complains about an election loss as being rigged?

I get it, you don't like Hillary because you don't like her liberal policies and find her untrustworthy. You're not wrong but you've done nothing to make a case for Trump being less worse or even just as worse.

[BlueK]

Trump is raising a generation of racist bullies:

"To understand precisely how Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has changed America, one need only look at a new pair of surveys. In April the Southern Poverty Law Center discovered that the Trump campaign has triggered an unprecedented wave of bigoted bullying in American schools: More than two-thirds of the teachers surveyed have had immigrant, Latino and Muslim students express fear about what will happen to them or their families if Trumps wins, while more than one-third have directly witnessed an increase in anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant prejudice.


http://www.salon.com/2016/08/17/trum...acist-bullies/

[Commando]

See? This is why Trump voters can burn in hell. I think these people are exceptionally dumb, but don't believe this isn't atypical among his base.

[cowboy]

I was unaware that any living person supported Citizen's United other than the justices that voted for it. That is good to know.

Since the SCOTUS justices are 9 (8) of the most intelligent people in the country, I guess I'm in good company.

A lot of people want Citizens United overturned-it's not a popular decision.

A lot of people want Roe v. Wade overturned, but that doesn't mean they're right. People don't care about constitutional rights that don't affect them directly. Trump's base has proven this, and it's not just the blind Trumpys who follow that ideology. The Citizens United decision is a clear case of protecting free speech. Since no one person has the dough to buy ad time on TV, of course it will be corporations and unions footing the bill. To say the laws challenged in this case didn't affect individual free speech is like saying that making it illegal for states to have access to tanks in their national guard doesn't affect the ability of individuals in those states to protect themselves against an opposing military.

I don't think Trump is paralleled by anyone when it comes to hubris. The effects of Trump's dog whistle racism are nothing to scoff at. He's already damaging the country with that shit. It sure seems that the Kremlin is actively pushing for him. For me, that alone is reason enough to oppose him.

Another thing that I find interesting is that those who are supporting Hillary don't seem to be thrilled about it. For progressives like me, it felt like she was shoved down our throats. I really think other more palatable candidates on the democrat side were discouraged from running. Trump though, is more like a cult leader. It's creepy. He will assert he has more political capital than Hillary.

What kind of person makes flippant remarks about their opponent being assassinated? Or complains about an election loss as being rigged?

I get it, you don't like Hillary because you don't like her liberal policies and find her untrustworthy. You're not wrong but you've done nothing to make a case for Trump being less worse or even just as worse.

We'll agree to disagree about the hubris comment, but the bolded part is purely conjecture. Do you have evidence to back this up? Also, I'm not trying to make any case for Trump, more a case against Hillary. Her policies would clearly damage the economy, and I've provided several examples of why I think liberal judges pose a threat to our constitutional rights. I think it is an unknown as to who is more dangerous, and Trump would probably be just as harmful to my industry as Hillary, albeit in different ways. I just don't think it's a slam dunk that one is worse than the other, though I have appreciated the posters who have taken my question seriously and explained why they believe the way they do.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Since the SCOTUS justices are 9 (8) of the most intelligent people in the country, I guess I'm in good company.

Only 5 of them owned that one.

[Omaha 680]

It looks like if there is anything that needs to be known about the Clinton Foundation, that prick Julian Assange will let us know soon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN10T01G

Bill and Hillary Clinton's charitable foundation hired the security firm FireEye to examine its data systems after seeing indications they might have been hacked, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

So far, no message or document hacked from the New York-based Clinton Foundation has surfaced in public, the sources said.

Although no documents have emerged, the attacks have left some Democrats and Clinton campaign officials worried that the hackers might have obtained emails and voice messages that could be used to reinforce Republican charges that donors to the Clinton Foundation were rewarded with access to Clinton and her aides while she was secretary of state or to her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Another concern: hackers or outlets such as the anti-secrecy WikiLeaks website could release documents and emails damaging to her presidential campaign, several people familiar with the foundation's activities said.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Only 5 of them owned that one.

Obviously you're not for free speech. If you're truly for free speech then you understand Citizens United. Read what George Will has written about it and you'll understand more about it. Why should the government be regulating political speech?

Aside from that, what effect has the Citizens United decision had on this cycle? Do you think any corporations wanted Donald Trump as the nominee from the GOP side. They wanted Jeb Bush. Where did that go?

[Northwestcoug]

You may believe that strongly, but to state it as fact and dismiss other opinions is where I disagree with your approach. I'm not defending Trump, just not in the 'Hillary isn't nearly as bad' camp.

Fair enough. It is my reasoned opinion that despite Hillary being a very mediocre and ethically challenged presidential candidate, she is still more qualified to run for office than Trump. He has amply demonstrated complete political ineptitude and basic human decency. I believe he is the absolute worst presidential candidate we've seen in our lifetime, and will go down as one of the worst in history. Is that better?

Maybe we could flesh out your concerns a bit, and I promise I won't go relentlessly Topper on you. You say you can't judge Trump as a worse candidate than Clinton. Why is that? What characteristics are you basing that judgement on? Temperament, experience, integrity, body count? It seems like your concerns with Hillary are based on what you think are certainties once she gets in office (economic catastrophe, liberal judges, etc.). But what about just the qualities of running for office? During this campaign, how do you judge the balance of evidence? They have both had scandals to varying degrees. What is their fitness as presidential candidates so far?

For my part, I'm evaluating my angst with Clinton. After decades of hearing about Vince Foster/Whitewater/Lewinski/Brodderick/Clinton Foundation/Benghazi/emails, I'd like to know how much of it is based on political rhetoric, since for most of that I am hearing yelling from just one side. With Trump, I feel I can judge by his own words. I don't think I am judging unfairly, since he freely says what I find repugnant.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I was talking to a friend yesterday who has a theory that Hillary might end up being a moderate conservative when all is said and done. Former Goldwater Girl, father was a Republican, she appears to latch onto leftist issues out of political opportunism, wasn't exactly on the gay marriage train early on. She'll be fighting an uphill battle to get a second term so Bill will tell her to pass bills like the 1996 welfare reform.

She's already more conservative than Donald Trump on foreign policy and trade matters (I believe her opposition to that trade deal is pure BS).

[BlueK]

With Trump, I feel I can judge by his own words. I don't think I am judging unfairly, since he freely says what I find repugnant.

EXACTLY! I only have to go as far as listening to Trump's own words, reading his own tweets and observing the way he acts to know he's a complete nut who is guaranteed to be a disaster in office.

[Maximus]

The alt right has taken over the GOP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.57828c6a967e

[frank ryan]

I was talking to a friend yesterday who has a theory that Hillary might end up being a moderate conservative when all is said and done. Former Goldwater Girl, father was a Republican, she appears to latch onto leftist issues out of political opportunism, wasn't exactly on the gay marriage train early on. She'll be fighting an uphill battle to get a second term so Bill will tell her to pass bills like the 1996 welfare reform.

She's already more conservative than Donald Trump on foreign policy and trade matters (I believe her opposition to that trade deal is pure BS).

People might disbelieve me and call me a progressive apologist but I'm a lot more hawkish than most democrats. I believe Hillary to be far more hawkish and sane when it comes to foreign policy than Trump. I also think those considering Trump not worse than Clinton need to read up on Paul Manafort and Gen Michael Flynn and their ties to Moscow. The Kremlin wants Trump. That is pretty terrifying. Forget the Supreme Court, Trump could single handedly destroy NATO.

And then there is this dangerous narrative that is Trump loses the election must have been stolen. He has also threatened that his people would riot.

[BlueK]

People might disbelieve me and call me a progressive apologist but I'm a lot more hawkish than most democrats. I believe Hillary to be far more hawkish and sane when it comes to foreign policy than Trump. I also think those considering Trump not worse than Clinton need to read up on Paul Manafort and Gen Michael Flynn and their ties to Moscow. The Kremlin wants Trump. That is pretty terrifying. Forget the Supreme Court, Trump could single handedly destroy NATO.

And then there is this dangerous narrative that is Trump loses the election must have been stolen. He has also threatened that his people would riot.

The pro-Russia thing he has is pretty alarming to me as well. Putin would play him like a fiddle. I can't think of a single reason why any supposed conservative or republican wouldn't be bothered by what he's said about Russia and Putin, combined with the paper trail that shows the ties he and his campaign have to them.

If it were a democrat presidential candidate cozying up to Putin and Russia like this, the GOP would be going absolutely APESHIT about it and making it a major issue in the campaign.

Check out this quote from the article below. I'm sure we should be excited about electing a president who wants us to get on the same page as those countries below who are recognizing Russia's claim to Crimea.

"Trump’s most shocking, pro-Kremlin proposal is to “look into” recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia. President Obama and nearly every member of Congress — Republican and Democrat — have rejected that idea vigorously. Only Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela have recognized Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Naturally, Putin would love to see the United States join that list."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.b9969d371402

[Uncle Ted]

People might disbelieve me and call me a progressive apologist but I'm a lot more hawkish than most democrats. I believe Hillary to be far more hawkish and sane when it comes to foreign policy than Trump. I also think those considering Trump not worse than Clinton need to read up on Paul Manafort and Gen Michael Flynn and their ties to Moscow. The Kremlin wants Trump. That is pretty terrifying. Forget the Supreme Court, Trump could single handedly destroy NATO.

And then there is this dangerous narrative that is Trump loses the election must have been stolen. He has also threatened that his people would riot.

I haven't been paying attention lately but when did the dems start caring about Russia again? I thought the cold war has been over for 20+ years...

[BlueK]

I haven't been paying attention lately but when did the dems start caring about Russia again? I thought the cold war has been over for 20+ years...

Irrelevant. It's really really bad policy for the US right now.