The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Jeff Lebowski]

Has he been hanging out too much with Hatfield?

Dignan. And Mr. Henry.

[Topper]

Trump was totally incompetent as leader of many business practices, is also corrupt, and has no respect for constitution and would be associated with the republican party, doing damage to the party for decades.

With hillary everything and anything can be blamed on dems.

The Supreme Court could be radically changed depending upon which party controls the White House over the next 4 to 8 years. If and when Hillary wins, we will see appointments which may erase several civil liberties, starting with the Second Amendment, property rights and free speech rights. We will also see the continued degradation in the privacy, not of the sexual kind, by her appointments. That is why I would be more willing to suffer a Trump presidency, over a Hillary or Sanders presidency. Her choices will eliminate the Second Amendment for all intents and purposes. We will have a total reversion to statism, which will effectively neuter the Supreme Court. Once those liberties are lost, they will not be reclaimed.

[Maximus]

The Supreme Court could be radically changed depending upon which party controls the White House over the next 4 to 8 years. If and when Hillary wins, we will see appointments which may erase several civil liberties, starting with the Second Amendment, property rights and free speech rights. We will also see the continued degradation in the privacy, not of the sexual kind, by her appointments. That is why I would be more willing to suffer a Trump presidency, over a Hillary or Sanders presidency. Her choices will eliminate the Second Amendment for all intents and purposes. We will have a total reversion to statism, which will effectively neuter the Supreme Court. Once those liberties are lost, they will not be reclaimed.

what makes you think trump will nominate anyone good either?

And besides, is there really any chance the 2nd gets eliminated? who would have cause to bring suit to ban guns? I am not a lawyer so I am sure I dont know much.
Trump seems just as authoritative as hillary and doesnt seem much more conservative, and negative reactions to him will go against republicans, while negative feelings toward hillary will go for republicans. We got get an actual good president after hillary. After trump is surely another democrat.

[Flystripper]

The second amendment isn't going anywhere. Though I wouldn't mind a different interpretation of it than what the NRA and gun lovers want.

[Topper]

what makes you think trump will nominate anyone good either?

And besides, is there really any chance the 2nd gets eliminated? who would have cause to bring suit to ban guns? I am not a lawyer so I am sure I dont know much.
Trump seems just as authoritative as hillary and doesnt seem much more conservative, and negative reactions to him will go against republicans, while negative feelings toward hillary will go for republicans. We got get an actual good president after hillary. After trump is surely another democrat.

I believe the GOP would have enough influence over Trump that he would not be able to nominate for appointment anybody who radically wants to eliminate personal liberties.

It would be easy for a case to make it to the Supreme Court to eliminate gun rights. The decisions which recognized what many believed to be true came down in 2008 and 2010. They were 5-4, or at leas the first was, decisions. Meaning one vote swings it the other way.

First, with the cooperation of the federal government, somebody such as DC passes a law which would effectively make it impossible to possess a weapon. It would then be challenged by somebody in District Court and at the Court of Appeals. The Solicitor General would submit briefs in favor of the new law. Then it would make it to the Supreme Court and voila, the right of self-defense would be forever erased. This right is relatively unique worldwide and many "progressives" look down their noses at it, as being uncivil. It is also highly symbolic and unique to the US philosophical beginnings where our Constitution and Bill of Rights were guaranteed against encroachment by government. In many other countries, people view rights flowing from the states, hence statism. The King grants you your rights. In the US, we recognized inalienable rights which each individual possesses regardless what government says. Through the advent and advancement of statism we are forfeiting our heritage and our protections. Hence, the Patriot Act, which invades our privacy for our protection. It is a gradual process of erosion.

[Topper]

The second amendment isn't going anywhere. Though I wouldn't mind a different interpretation of it than what the NRA and gun lovers want.

One justice changed and it's gone. You can't own a weapon effectively if you live in NYC, unless you are royalty. That would be the norm if Hillary wins some appointments. Additionally, property rights would be further eroded, and pc speech would also be mandated. There a number of rights which would be eliminated by her appointing, non-case and controversy, non-Constructionist justices.

[Northwestcoug]

The Supreme Court could be radically changed depending upon which party controls the White House over the next 4 to 8 years. If and when Hillary wins, we will see appointments which may erase several civil liberties, starting with the Second Amendment, property rights and free speech rights. We will also see the continued degradation in the privacy, not of the sexual kind, by her appointments. That is why I would be more willing to suffer a Trump presidency, over a Hillary or Sanders presidency. Her choices will eliminate the Second Amendment for all intents and purposes. We will have a total reversion to statism, which will effectively neuter the Supreme Court. Once those liberties are lost, they will not be reclaimed.

This is oh so hilarious. Topper loves to argue that the devil we know will almost certainly be worse than the devil we don't know (Trump). And here he is (today even!), saying that 'we're gonna open up the libel laws!' so he can threaten to sue even more people exercising their 1st amendment rights (minute 2:20)

Seriously Topper, Hillary is not the sociopathic dictator scumbag you keep making her out to be, and Trump is not the vague question mark that you hope congress will be able to check. Trump is an absolute disaster, who has openly gone against pretty much every political philosophy conservatives hold dear.

It's gonna be OK. Hold your nose, and vote for Hillary. It's good odds that she will be a better president than Trump. And with any luck, the GOP will wake up and reform itself.

[Maximus]

This is oh so hilarious. Topper loves to argue that the devil we know will almost certainly be worse than the devil we don't know (Trump). And here he is (today even!), saying that 'we're gonna open up the libel laws!' so he can threaten to sue even more people exercising their 1st amendment rights (minute 2:20)

Seriously Topper, Hillary is not the sociopathic dictator scumbag you keep making her out to be, and Trump is not the vague question mark that you hope congress will be able to check. Trump is an absolute disaster, who has openly gone against pretty much every political philosophy conservatives hold dear.

It's gonna be OK. Hold your nose, and vote for Hillary. It's good odds that she will be a better president than Trump. And with any luck, the GOP will wake up and reform itself.

the GOP had at least half a dozen good candidates, yet the voters went for the shittiest one. The voters really need to reform themselves.

[creekster]

the GOP had at least half a dozen good candidates, yet the voters went for the shittiest one. The voters really need to reform themselves.

We get the government we deserve.

[Bo Diddley]

A thinly veiled Non-sequitur imitation.

I threw my support behind the Libertarians. I wonder if I registered as a Democrat, if that would make more of an impact.

[Northwestcoug]

the GOP had at least half a dozen good candidates, yet the voters went for the shittiest one. The voters really need to reform themselves.

There will always be idiots. Let the GOP reform itself to attract the least amount of idiots possible.

[Topper]

This is oh so hilarious. Topper loves to argue that the devil we know will almost certainly be worse than the devil we don't know (Trump). And here he is (today even!), saying that 'we're gonna open up the libel laws!' so he can threaten to sue even more people exercising their 1st amendment rights (minute 2:20)

Seriously Topper, Hillary is not the sociopathic dictator scumbag you keep making her out to be, and Trump is not the vague question mark that you hope congress will be able to check. Trump is an absolute disaster, who has openly gone against pretty much every political philosophy conservatives hold dear.

It's gonna be OK. Hold your nose, and vote for Hillary. It's good odds that she will be a better president than Trump. And with any luck, the GOP will wake up and reform itself.

I would not vote for Hillary under any circumstance. If the choice were between Hillary and Sanders, who has no grasp of macro-economics, I would vote for Sanders. Most of my professor and "intellectual" friends are voting for Sanders over Hillary but will vote for Hillary if it is Trump. I find everything about her repulsive, and believe she will start more meaningless wars such as Libya, and Syria. She lacks the political savoir faire of her husband. About the only argument anybody makes for Hillary is, "She doesn't suck as much as Trump." What a ringing endorsement. Plus, if she loses, we don't have see Bill any more. The Clinton dynasty needs to end now, or be embattled for the next term, so that she can't enjoy it.

If Trump makes too many bozo statements, and the Libertarians have a candidate, that will be my vote. Shaka makes a cogent argument why voting for Trump makes strategic sense.

[Northwestcoug]

I would not vote for Hillary under any circumstance. If the choice were between Hillary and Sanders, who has no grasp of macro-economics, I would vote for Sanders. Most of my professor and "intellectual" friends are voting for Sanders over Hillary but will vote for Hillary if it is Trump. I find everything about her repulsive, and believe she will start more meaningless wars such as Libya, and Syria. She lacks the political savoir faire of her husband. About the only argument anybody makes for Hillary is, "She doesn't suck as much as Trump." What a ringing endorsement. Plus, if she loses, we don't have see Bill any more. The Clinton dynasty needs to end now, or be embattled for the next term, so that she can't enjoy it.

If Trump makes too many bozo statements, and the Libertarians have a candidate, that will be my vote. Shaka makes a cogent argument why voting for Trump makes strategic sense.

Which is fine. It's yours, Shaka's and anyone else's right to gamble on Trump. I'm going to gamble on Hillary. But I do hope it is becoming clearer to intelligent people considering Trump that a gamble on him is riskier than one on Hillary.

[Shaka]

Which is fine. It's yours, Shaka's and anyone else's right to gamble on Trump. I'm going to gamble on Hillary. But I do hope it is becoming clearer to intelligent people considering Trump that a gamble on him is riskier than one on Hillary.

You guys need to quit throwing this, "intelligent people" thing out there in the context that anyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent.

Also don't mis-characterize me as a Trump guy. I'm not. If I get the chance I will cast my vote for Rubio. In the general I think that Trump is the lesser of two evils and that's certainly not an unreasonable opinion.

[Topper]

Which is fine. It's yours, Shaka's and anyone else's right to gamble on Trump. I'm going to gamble on Hillary. But I do hope it is becoming clearer to intelligent people considering Trump that a gamble on him is riskier than one on Hillary.

There is the typical arrogance associated with the Democratic Party, namely, that GOP voters are less intelligent that Democratic Party voters.

However, it makes no sense that a gamble on Trump is riskier than a gamble on Hillary. With Trump, he will need to count on the GOP to get anything done in Congress. If he thumbs his nose at the GoP, he won't get anything done and thus he is contained.

With Hillary, there is nothing to contain her, as the Dems will go and support whatever malice she wants to heap upon the population not paying money to listen to Bill speak. What containment mechanism is in place? Only if the GOP stays in place. With Trump, you have the Dems who vote in block against him and the GOP. Thus, in light of risk containment, Trump is a lesser risk because there are more containment devices in place to stop anything stupid he might try. There is only the GOP which typically just acquiesces to most of what the Democratic Party wants. However, because the Democratic Party will want to stop Trump if he fails to cooperate with the GOP, he will have no assistance.