The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's a result of oppression. It's actually not funny.

Uncle Ted is trolling you with outdated numbers. Recent numbers show Trump getting only 26% total in Utah. And most of Trump's support is from non-LDS voters. And I guarantee you that LDS women have lower support for Trump than LDS men.

But go ahead and blast your vuvuzela anyway if you like.

[SCcoug]

Lifetime's young Hillary web series.

Embedded Tweet

[imanihonjin]

Did Bill Clinton ever brag about sexually assaulting women?

Do you really think he hasn't bragged to others about his conquests?

[creekster]

I think most everyone on here would agree the two parties have given us a lousy, rotten, stinking choice. They both have done abusive things to other people. I fear for the country either way.

It isn't which has the largest character flaws for me, it is which one could do the most damage to what I would want our countries path to be going forward.

I understand this, and I very much fear what Clinton and her cronies might try to do with power, especially if she were handed a democratic controlled congress, but the problem is that Trump could do severe and long term damage to our economy and our foreign policy through his apparent propensity towards protectionism and jingoistic adventurism. We simply cannot afford the sort of military excess that he is implicitly proposing. We simply cannot afford to begin a round of protectionist craziness. So even though I dislike much of what Clinton stands for, I cannot abide the potential disaster that Trumps brings with him, not to mention my refusal to agree to place such a despicable person in the white house.

[SeattleUte]

I dont think thats why he is doing it. I think it is more along the lines of Trump both trying to make it look like EVERYBODY does it, even the beloved WJC, and trying to so saturate the public discourse with denials and accusations and back and forths that the entire issue is mooted out.

I asked the question not as a defense of trump. to the contrary, I never understood why WJC got such a pass. I wondered wherein lies the difference? The esteemed SU braved the toxic atmosphere here to tell me that the difference lies in the fact that trump bragged publicly. Is that all? If so, that disappoints me.

I think there's a material difference between being a philanderer and an admitted sexual assaulter. (I submit this is the mainstream view.) Evidence that Bill Clinton ever forced himself on women without their consent is not, in my opinion, credible overall. Trump on the other hand has admitted doing it, which casts a different light on the women who are now accusing him.

I don't know why we're talking about Bill anyway. He's not running for president. If anything his sexual transgressions have harmed Hillary most of all.

Regardless, I have generally voted Republican because I regard the economic part of their narrative as vital. But here that predilection leads me to regarding Hillary Clinton as the better candidate--wholly on the merits, as I've explained.

[byu71]

I understand this, and I very much fear what Clinton and her cronies might try to do with power, especially if she were handed a democratic controlled congress, but the problem is that Trump could do severe and long term damage to our economy and our foreign policy through his apparent propensity towards protectionism and jingoistic adventurism. We simply cannot afford the sort of military excess that he is implicitly proposing. We simply cannot afford to begin a round of protectionist craziness. So even though I dislike much of what Clinton stands for, I cannot abide the potential disaster that Trumps brings with him, not to mention my refusal to agree to place such a despicable person in the white house.

HRC has protectionist views when it come to trade like Trump.

The argument you make regarding the military rings true to me. I have no idea if the guy has just a way out of control ego or he is one of those people who is really on the edge and could go off and do something really, really stupid.

A favorable for HRC is you do know for sure who she is and I think this country is well on it's way to socialism anyway.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Uncle Ted is trolling you with outdated numbers. Recent numbers show Trump getting only 26% total in Utah. And most of Trump's support is from non-LDS voters. And I guarantee you that LDS women have lower support for Trump than LDS men.

But go ahead and blast your vuvuzela anyway if you like.

The non-LDS people in Utah, aside from many in Salt Lake and Park City, are generally prime Trump voters.

[creekster]

HRC has protectionist views when it come to trade like Trump.

The argument you make regarding the military rings true to me. I have no idea if the guy has just a way out of control ego or he is one of those people who is really on the edge and could go off and do something really, really stupid.

A favorable for HRC is you do know for sure who she is and I think this country is well on it's way to socialism anyway.

HRC doesnt urge tariffs as an answer to things like a company outsourcing jobs to another country.

Moreover, in the realm of economics and international relations what you say and how you say it can sometimes be just as important (or even more so) than what you do. One of my criticisms of Obama is that he seems to sometimes forget the power of the president's statement. That symbol and guide remains hugely significant. I am confident that HRC will sometimes miscalculate the best response to a situation. But Trump has made me confident that he will make no calculation whatsoever. Instead, he will spew whatever sordid comment pops into his mind at any time and that is exactly the worst thing this nation or, indeed, the world, could have in the oval office.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Other than his Utah rants, SU is nailing it here.

All this talk about Bill Clinton is silly. And it highlights one of my beefs with modern political discourse: whataboutism. Also known as tu quoque. This article does a great job of describing this dumb phenomenon.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/16/...election-year/

Then again, you could argue that Tu Quoque is the whole essence of this year’s election. The case for each candidate is that the other candidate is even worse. Two candidates who can’t really compete on the basis of their virtues are instead competing on the basis of their vices. But why should the sins of one candidate excuse the sins of the other?

Yet we see this argument all the time, in the following basic form: “This person I like did something wrong? Yeah, well, but this person I don’t like also did something wrong.”

You can see the obvious appeal of this style of argument. You don’t have to answer for all the bad stuff you’ve done, so long as there is somebody else somewhere in the world who has also done something wrong. Since that will always be the case, this is an all-purpose Get Out of Jail Free card.

The fact that this fallacious argument is common is not news, and you don’t need me to report to you that Someone Is Wrong on the Internet. Yet the specific style of Tu Quoque strikes me as a problem with peculiar resonance in our current culture. We live in an era when positive ideals have withered. They are considered not merely discredited but irrelevant. Instead, we are supposed to be motivated by the need to block the evils of the other side, and this is considered good reason not too look to closely at the evils of those who claim to be on our side.

This is the Era of Tu Quoque. So it’s no wonder, really, that we ended up with an election where the main case for both of the major party candidates is to point out how bad the other candidate is. It’s only logical, in its own perverse way.

[creekster]

I think there's a material difference between being a philanderer and an admitted sexual assaulter. (I submit this is the mainstream view.) Evidence that Bill Clinton ever forced himself on women without their consent is not, in my opinion, credible overall. Trump on the other hand has admitted doing it, which casts a different light on the women who are now accusing him.

I don't know why we're talking about Bill anyway. He's not running for president. If anything his sexual transgressions have harmed Hillary most of all.

Regardless, I have generally voted Republican because I regard the economic part of their narrative as vital. But here that predilection leads me to regarding Hillary Clinton as the better candidate--wholly on the merits, as I've explained.

I am not talking about Bill in this campaign, and perhaps I should have put this in a different thread. I have long felt that the Monica Lewinsky scandal affected this nation's view of politics and the content of political discourse in a remarkably negative way. I still think character matters; that it makes a difference what sort of person is our leader. for some reason, WJC largely got a pass on the issue (I realize there were repercussions form Lewinsky, but otherwise not so much and even those Lewinsky repercussions were not long lasting). So here the primary difference, as you pointed out, is that Trump was recorded bragging about it. Both he and WJC deny having acted wrongly. Both He and Trump are faced with multiple women who assert the opposite. And look, there is credible evidence that one of the two used a cigar as a dildo in the white house. you think a guy like that isnt going to brag about it? So it really comes down to the recording.

(Of course, it also comes down to the fact that WJC was smooth and appealing while Trump is loutish, ugly and horrible. But that is also just a part of life)

[byu71]

I am not talking about Bill in this campaign, and perhaps I should have put this in a different thread. I have long felt that the Monica Lewinsky scandal affected this nation's view of politics and the content of political discourse in a remarkably negative way. I still think character matters; that it makes a difference what sort of person is our leader. for some reason, WJC largely got a pass on the issue (I realize there were repercussions form Lewinsky, but otherwise not so much and even those Lewinsky repercussions were not long lasting). So here the primary difference, as you pointed out, is that Trump was recorded bragging about it. Both he and WJC deny having acted wrongly. Both He and Trump are faced with multiple women who assert the opposite. And look, there is credible evidence that one of the two used a cigar as a dildo in the white house. you think a guy like that isnt going to brag about it? So it really comes down to the recording.

(Of course, it also comes down to the fact that WJC was smooth and appealing while Trump is loutish, ugly and horrible. But that is also just a part of life)

I will bet Anthony Weiner saw WJC's success after being outed as as scumbag and thought, great America is done worrying about this stuff. Anthony didn't realize if it is recorded, then we care.

[creekster]

Other than his Utah rants, SU is nailing it here.

All this talk about Bill Clinton is silly. And it highlights one of my beefs with modern political discourse: whataboutism. Also known as tu quoque. This article does a great job of describing this dumb phenomenon.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/16/...election-year/

Like I tried to explain, I dont mean to use the WJC as an argument for or against Trump, per se, but it does amaze me how we fail to consider character in our modern political evaluations, except when its the other guy or otherwise suits us. The differnece between WJC and Trump, in some respects, is not that great.

IN fact, I am really asking the inverse of your beloved tu quoque fallacy; Given that Trump is so horrible, why didnt we reach the same conclusion then?

[myboynoah]

Other than his Utah rants, SU is nailing it here.

All this talk about Bill Clinton is silly. And it highlights one of my beefs with modern political discourse: whataboutism. Also known as tu quoque. This article does a great job of describing this dumb phenomenon.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/16/...election-year/

Yep, so don't succumb to this thinking and Write in Mitt!!!

Except for those in Utah, and maybe Idaho. They should vote for Evan.

[BlueK]

HRC has protectionist views when it come to trade like Trump.

The argument you make regarding the military rings true to me. I have no idea if the guy has just a way out of control ego or he is one of those people who is really on the edge and could go off and do something really, really stupid.

A favorable for HRC is you do know for sure who she is and I think this country is well on it's way to socialism anyway.

I think historically HRC has had more free trade views, which is one of the major things Bernie was trying to slam her for. She moved more protectionist during the campaign. Now she may stay there, but it hasn't really been her general view of trade in the past. Bill of course got NAFTA signed and was a free trader. And Creekster also made what I think is an extremely important distinction. Hillary has never said anything about installing a ridiculous and sure to be disastrous 45% tariff on anything like Trump has. Promising to do things to make it harder for companies to outsource is also protectionist in nature but far less extreme than Trump's tariff would be.

[Walter Sobchak]

It's a result of oppression. It's actually not funny.

Case in point:

Embedded Tweet