The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Northwestcoug]

I cannot understand this thinking. How could a fiscal conservative ever vote for somebody who is NOT fiscally conservative and whose party has no fiscal conservative tendencies? Clinton would interpret the "landslide" as a mandate for her false precepts. Voting for a third party will signal to the GOP, to shape up. We need to minimize the impact of a Clinton victory to forestall her actions. If the Dems have the Senate and the House, we're fucked. I will commence smoking what Bill never inhaled.

You should consider doing that now. Relax, man. This country has survived worse crises than worst case scenarios for either a Trump or Clinton presidency. Although the potential damage of a Trump presidency is REALLY scary, the country has seen worse. If you are as scared of the democratic platform as you put on here, you should worry more about the republican party surviving after Trump. It still is important to have a functioning second party.

[BlueK]

I cannot understand this thinking. How could a fiscal conservative ever vote for somebody who is NOT fiscally conservative and whose party has no fiscal conservative tendencies? Clinton would interpret the "landslide" as a mandate for her false precepts. Voting for a third party will signal to the GOP, to shape up. We need to minimize the impact of a Clinton victory to forestall her actions. If the Dems have the Senate and the House, we're fucked. I will commence smoking what Bill never inhaled.

The GOP has a huge problem considering now they actually even have to fight their own nominee to keep the House and Senate. He's actually telling his minions to vote democrat if their rep isn't "loyal" to him. Yeah, that's not fascist.

[BlueK]

I heard this today on MSNBC. Former McCain campaign advisor Steve Schmidt on what Trump has said about John McCain. I can't find anything to disagree with here even though I'm no McCain fan. But Trump's attacks on him are beyond shameful, IMO, and Schmidt says it well. McCain was sacrificing for his country and suffering for it while "Trump was dodging the draft and partying at Studio 54."

http://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle...n-784213059764

[Topper]

You should consider doing that now. Relax, man. This country has survived worse crises than worst case scenarios for either a Trump or Clinton presidency. Although the potential damage of a Trump presidency is REALLY scary, the country has seen worse. If you are as scared of the democratic platform as you put on here, you should worry more about the republican party surviving after Trump. It still is important to have a functioning second party.

Retaining the House is essential to remaining viable. I do not want to convert to Democratic socialism. That lifestyle would be demoralizing. Stay drunk or high all day long is the only means of enduring a life with no upside, as is the case in democratic socialist states.

[imanihonjin]

A handful of normally solidly red states turning blue will be more important, even in the event of a general landslide. If republicans won't be able to count on Utah or other red states anymore, they will change.



So let the dems run wild. The country is stable enough to withstand a season of the democrats' wildest dreams. If they screw it up as much as you say they will, that will only help hone the subsequent republican platform.

It will also give the crazies their platform and the Republican party is no different. We need both parties to moderate, not just the Republicans.

[BlueK]

But the changes the Dems will wreak will be irreversible.

I think a lot of Trump changes may also be irreversible. He's already changed the country, IMO, without even winning. He's in the process of permanently turning his supporters against the very concept of constitutional representative government, IMO. It's new to America, but comes straight out of 1930s post WW1 Europe. Fortunately we're still stronger than that. But he's eroding it. He's already preparing his cult following to assume they can't trust the result of an election.

[Topper]

I think a lot of Trump changes may also be irreversible. He's already changed the country, IMO, without even winning.

In the end, I will be able to survive whatever changes are made. I lived in a time of income mobility and opportunity to accumulate and to save wealth. The changes by the Dems will discourage that, and will create more class entrenchment. The Democrats rule through an oligarchy whose power will increase even more. The income quartiles will compress and the upward mobility will decrease. The upside, except for oligarchs, will evaporate for the vast majority. It will be a different culture with less opportunity. For my grandchildren I do not like the changes. Government will continue to provide and the markets will erode, except for the large bureaucratic type businesses who are grafted monopolies or quasi-monopolies by government. This will not be positive for productivity or for innovation. Small business is the answer to innovation, but the Dems despise small business. IMHO, this principle, promoting small business could be the savior for the GOP. People all races, ethnicity, bckgrounds and both genders participate in small business. This can be unifying. More people are employed by small business than elsewhere. A renewed focus on this can eliminate the division.

[SeattleUte]

Lebowski's purported loathing for Trump rings hollow to me. He should be celebrating BYU's exclusion from the P5 for much the same reason he claims to hate Trump.

People here who equate Hillary with Trump are muddled. The prosecutor declined to issue charges so the case is closed. That's how we define truth in our country--a free country. I'm sure I've deleted 30,000 emails in the past year; I've deleted less than I should have. Everyone does it of necessity; like picking your nose.

But since when does any politician not "lie" in exactly the same way people claim she has? They are constantly spinning or "lying"--whatever you choose to call it--to put the best face on themselves and advocate for their policies. George W. Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction but it didn't stop virtually everyone here from voting for him. And Bush's lies were actually really harmful. Hillary's "lies" are just typical partisan characterizations--her enemies say she lied, her friends don't see it that way; it's just politics. The only reason I'm willing to forgive the unnatural hatred for her and not dismiss it as sexist pure and simple is that dynastic politicians are intrinsically annoying. I get that part of it.

[Northwestcoug]

Retaining the House is essential to remaining viable. I do not want to convert to Democratic socialism. That lifestyle would be demoralizing. Stay drunk or high all day long is the only means of enduring a life with no upside, as is the case in democratic socialist states.

Then quit pretending you're not going to vote for Trump. He's all that stands between us and socialism, man.

It will also give the crazies their platform and the Republican party is no different. We need both parties to moderate, not just the Republicans.

The republican party is nearly dead. It will take some time in the desert before it's seen as a viable alternative able to moderate the left. Hasten the day by handing the reigns over to the democrats.

[BlueK]

In the end, I will be able to survive whatever changes are made. I lived in a time of income mobility and opportunity to accumulate and to save wealth. The changes by the Dems will discourage that, and will create more class entrenchment. The Democrats rule through an oligarchy whose power will increase even more. The income quartiles will compress and the upward mobility will decrease. The upside, except for oligarchs, will evaporate for the vast majority. It will be a different culture with less opportunity. For my grandchildren I do not like the changes. Government will continue to provide and the markets will erode, except for the large bureaucratic type businesses who are grafted monopolies or quasi-monopolies by government. This will not be positive for productivity or for innovation. Small business is the answer to innovation, but the Dems despise small business. IMHO, this principle, promoting small business could be the savior for the GOP. People all races, ethnicity, bckgrounds and both genders participate in small business. This can be unifying. More people are employed by small business than elsewhere. A renewed focus on this can eliminate the division.

I'd take Holland 2016 over Italy 1935 any day of the week.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lebowski's purported loathing for Trump rings hollow to me. He should be celebrating BYU's exclusion from the P5 for much the same reason he claims to hate Trump.

People here who equate Hillary with Trump are muddled. The prosecutor declined to issue charges so the case is closed. That's how we define truth in our country--a free country. I'm sure I've deleted 30,000 emails in the past year; I've deleted less than I should have. Everyone does it of necessity; like picking your nose.

But since when does any politician not "lie" in exactly the same way people claim she has? They are constantly spinning or "lying"--whatever you choose to call it--to put the best face on themselves and advocate for their policies. George W. Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction but it didn't stop virtually everyone here from voting for him. And Bush's lies were actually really harmful. Hillary's "lies" are just partisan characterizations. The only reason I'm willing to forgive the unnatural hatred for her and not dismiss it as sexist pure and simple is that dynastic politicians are intrinsically annoying. I get that part of it.

Hey! You somehow contrived a way to take a completely unrelated issue and use it to take a shot at BYU. Perfectly in character.

[PaloAltoCougar]

... I'm sure I've deleted 30,000 emails in the past year; I've deleted less than I should have. Everyone does it of necessity; like picking your nose.

I'd prefer Hillary (or nearly any other sentient being) to Trump, but I think you're being too dismissive of her email sins. I assume your deletion of 30,000 emails wasn't done as a single act in the face of a Congressional subpoena. Would a judge use the quoted line in dismissing a motion for sanctions against a litigant who did what she did?

[BlueK]

Hey! You somehow contrived a way to take a completely unrelated issue and use it to take a shot at BYU. Perfectly in character.

It's what utes do best. They're masters at scoping out a purely sports-related story on ESPN about BYU that has nothing at all to do with their team and try to force the discussion in the comments section to be about how awful the LDS church is. Classy.

[imanihonjin]

Lebowski's purported loathing for Trump rings hollow to me. He should be celebrating BYU's exclusion from the P5 for much the same reason he claims to hate Trump.

People here who equate Hillary with Trump are muddled. The prosecutor declined to issue charges so the case is closed. That's how we define truth in our country--a free country. I'm sure I've deleted 30,000 emails in the past year; I've deleted less than I should have. Everyone does it of necessity; like picking your nose.

But since when does any politician not "lie" in exactly the same way people claim she has? They are constantly spinning or "lying"--whatever you choose to call it--to put the best face on themselves and advocate for their policies. George W. Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction but it didn't stop virtually everyone here from voting for him. And Bush's lies were actually really harmful. Hillary's "lies" are just typical partisan characterizations--her enemies say she lied, her friends don't see it that way; it's just politics. The only reason I'm willing to forgive the unnatural hatred for her and not dismiss it as sexist pure and simple is that dynastic politicians are intrinsically annoying. I get that part of it.

That isn't how it works. Nothing is closed until there is a verdict rendered.

That's great.....did you delete those emails after receiving a subpoena and did you delete emails that you may have had a regulatory obligation to have kept? I work in a highly regulated industry where we have explicitly defined retention schedules for our business. I can't tell you how bad things would be for us if we deleted 30,000 emails let alone if we deleted them after a notification that an audit was imminent. I could only imagine what criminal charges would be brought if we were then found to have wiped those servers clean.

[SeattleUte]

I'd prefer Hillary (or nearly any other sentient being) to Trump, but I think you're being too dismissive of her email sins. I assume your deletion of 30,000 emails wasn't done as a single act in the face of a Congressional subpoena. Would a judge use the quoted line in dismissing a motion for sanctions against a litigant who did what she did?

I wonder if it's fair to equate a congressional subpoena and a judicial subpoena.