The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[PaloAltoCougar]

PAC, seriously, I don't think you are very convincing in expressing criticism of her. ...

That's because unlike some here I don't think she's the most evil person to have walked the planet or that her service as SoS was an unmitigated disaster. Putting aside the personal traits I dislike (that grating voice when speaking to large groups and her Nixonesque gestures and body language), I'm probably most bothered by her denials and the way she tries to shift blame for her mistakes (hardly unique among pols). Starting with her vicious attacks on Bill's accusers, she always seems more concerned about self-protection than getting at the truth of the matter and apologizing for screw-ups (although she's far more self-critical than Trump).

The fact Benghazi happened, although tragic, certainly isn't more damning of her than the loss of 200+ servicemen's lives in Lebanon due to weak security should be damning of Reagan (who ignored advice from his key advisers not to station servicemen in Beirut). Terrible things like that happen to every administration. I'm more bothered by her (and Obama's) initial attempts to deflect and shift blame. I'm also not troubled much by her personal email server (other SoS's have used them) as much as I am by her behavior after its existence was revealed. Once an investigation was underway, her destruction of 30,000+ emails, knowing full well any investigator would subpoena them, was unethical at the very least.

And btw, I'm fine with NAFTA and the TPP, although I know only the general details. My impression is that the jobs that have been lost as a result of open trade were doomed anyway, and that the benefits of those free trade bills are only beginning to appear and are expected to increase significantly in the future.

I also think the Clinton Foundation actively soliciting funds from foreign governments during her time as SoS was contemptible, but I don't believe it had a significant effect on policymaking. It certainly doesn't pass the smell test, however.

But you're right, while there are many others I would prefer ahead of Hillary (for starters, Mitt or Bob Gates), I think the U.S. will survive with her in office and I'm not the one best able to criticize her. I don't think she'll be significantly worse than Bill, although she'll perform with less charm and fewer cigars. I can live with that.

[SeattleUte]

That's because unlike some here I don't think she's the most evil person to have walked the planet or that her service as SoS was an unmitigated disaster. Putting aside the personal traits I dislike (that grating voice when speaking to large groups and her Nixonesque gestures and body language), I'm probably most bothered by her denials and the way she tries to shift blame for her mistakes (hardly unique among pols). Starting with her vicious attacks on Bill's accusers, she always seems more concerned about self-protection than getting at the truth of the matter and apologizing for screw-ups (although she's far more self-critical than Trump).

The fact Benghazi happened, although tragic, certainly isn't more damning of her than the loss of 200+ servicemen's lives in Lebanon due to weak security should be damning of Reagan (who ignored advice from his key advisers not to station servicemen in Beirut). Terrible things like that happen to every administration. I'm more bothered by her (and Obama's) initial attempts to deflect and shift blame. I'm also not troubled much by her personal email server (other SoS's have used them) as much as I am by her behavior after its existence was revealed. Once an investigation was underway, her destruction of 30,000+ emails, knowing full well any investigator would subpoena them, was unethical at the very least.

And btw, I'm fine with NAFTA and the TPP, although I know only the general details. My impression is that the jobs that have been lost as a result of open trade were doomed anyway, and that the benefits of those free trade bills are only beginning to appear and are expected to increase significantly in the future.

I also think the Clinton Foundation actively soliciting funds from foreign governments during her time as SoS was contemptible, but I don't believe it had a significant effect on policymaking. It certainly doesn't pass the smell test, however.

But you're right, while there are many others I would prefer ahead of Hillary (for starters, Mitt or Bob Gates), I think the U.S. will survive with her in office and I'm not the one best able to criticize her. I don't think she'll be significantly worse than Bill, although she'll perform with less charm and fewer cigars. I can live with that.

The subtext of your entire first paragraph seems to be that you won't vote for her because she's a woman. It's very transparent.

[PaloAltoCougar]

The subtext of your entire first paragraph seems to be that you won't vote for her because she's a woman. It's very transparent.

Despite being the father of four women, I am unreformed.

[Northwestcoug]

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.

It's not meant to be lazy nor condescending. But honestly, there is no dearth of speeches, interviews, or tweets from Trump that clearly manifest just how horrendous a presidential candidate he is. You don't need to search hard for instances where he disqualifies himself as a candidate. And, I can say this freely, without resorting to a 'tu quoque' argument about how bad the other side is. Yes, Hillary is a terrible candidate. It has been said many times on this thread. You'll only find a couple of people here who are enthusiastic supporters of her. The majority of her supporters here have no illusions of her fitness as a candidate. We simply understand that on the spectrum of bad candidates, one is clearly worse.

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.

Speaking of lazy arguments...
Is it really a given that Hillary will permanently threaten our constitutional rights via her SCOTUS nominees? Which ones are we talking about? I'll give you gun rights; I doubt her nominees will fight for the conservative side of that argument. But what else? I'm honestly curious about what other constitutional rights are in danger from her appointments. Maybe some of our respected lawyers can help us out.

In the meantime (and again, this has been repeated here before) we already know how Trump feels about freedom of speech and eminent domain (let's not forget how dangerously close he comes to violating freedom of religion with his attacks on muslims here in the US). So you state that by his policies he threatens civil rights in the short-term, though Hillary is more dangerous because her appointees will have more long-lasting effects. But what in Trump's history makes you feel at ease with his potential nominees? Given his very public attacks on multiple civil rights, why wouldn't he search out SCOTUS picks that would share his views?

[Jeff Lebowski]

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?

No, what is ridiculous is you doggedly clinging to this silly spin that Hillary not winning Utah would be the major story. Utah is the reddest of the red states and Hillary has always been reviled by conservative voters (something not at all unique to Utah). Yet the democratic candidate has more support and the republican candidate has less support than any election in the last sixty years. If you count the Johnson voters, a majority of Utahns will vote against the republican candidate. Like I said, all the real political experts point to that as the major story in Utah this election cycle.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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?

What is funny here is that normally you are the one citing "All the experts agree with me."

[Sleeping in EQ]

Trump's playbook:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

[BlueK]

New poll in Texas shows the race tightening up: Trump only ahead by 6 points. This is really starting to take the direction of becoming a slaughter.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tein-6104.html

[PaloAltoCougar]

Listening to Trump's speech about his plan to combat terrorism, I was reminded of this week's Joe Klein column in Time in which he observed the following:

It’s always fun to watch Trump deliver a prepared text. He appears to be discovering it with the rest of us, offering a running commentary on what he’s reading, seemingly amazed that the ideas appearing on the teleprompter reflect his own. The result is a strange echolalia: “American steel,” he said in Detroit. Then he repeated it, sounding surprised and impressed. “Steel!” and again, “Steel! … will send new skyscrapers soaring.”

In discussing his plans for fighting ISIS, Trump spoke of "extreme vetting", although he didn't provide details of what that means. But he must know what he's talking about because he said multiple times it would be EXTREME.

BTW, Klein, who I believe was the author of Primary Colors, takes some shots at Hillary as well. I agree with his observation that,

I don’t believe the Clintons are crooks, but their staggering faith in their own righteousness has led to the appearance of impropriety in more than a few of these transactions.

[Bo Diddley]

Trump's playbook:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

Good call.

[Eddie]

...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...

I was listening to something on the radio the other day talking about media bias, I thought it was pretty interesting.

The example they used was that when Bill Clinton was elected one of his first acts was related to abortion counseling in federally funded clinics. At the time, the headlines described this as keeping a campaign promise.

On the other hand, one of W. Bush's first actions was to ban the funding of aid to international groups counseling on or performing abortions. His action was described in the headlines as pandering to the far right constituents.

[Commando]

New poll in Texas shows the race tightening up: Trump only ahead by 6 points. This is really starting to take the direction of becoming a slaughter.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tein-6104.html

Can't wait to take a deuce on Trump's political career. Not so much for Trump's sake, but for his supporters, who are all dumbasses.

[Bo Diddley]

Can't wait to take a deuce on Trump's political career. Not so much for Trump's sake, but for his supporters, who are all dumbasses.

+∞ ∞

[BlueK]

As the numbers get increasingly bad for Trump he will actually get nuttier and more extreme in his statements until it all embarrassingly implodes. I think to give the finger to the GOP there is even a chance he pulls himself out of the race before election day so he doesn't have to admit defeat. He's that crazy.

[falafel]

Can't wait to take a deuce on Trump's political career. Not so much for Trump's sake, but for his supporters, who are all dumbasses.

Whoa whoa whoa, did you forget byu71's golfing buddies? Recently a few people described them as "not total a-holes" or something like that.