|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: Guy Humual wrote: I wouldn't vote for Trump, he's making all sorts of promises, not the sort I'd be interested in, but certainly he's suggesting things that would be very hard to pass into law. On the other hand I'd have gladly voted for Sanders. Maybe he couldn't deliver on his promises but he would have at least fought for them.
Clinton's message then seems to be: lower your expectations. We'll only do whatever the republicans will allow.
Maybe that's good enough for you but if I can't vote for someone who's at least willing to fight than why vote at all? If things are so impossible to get though the house and senate than why's Trump a big threat?
Because Trump would be approaching it from the other side. The same entrenched majority in the House that prevents single payer would be glad to repeal the ACA outright -- and would have the votes to do it. Ditto the (presumptive) Senate majority the Republicans would hold if Trump is victorious. Clinton's veto pen can prevent that.
Basically, you have three choices : an improvement, the status quo, or things getting much worse. Except that the improvement is not actually a choice, because it's not actually possible. But there's still a very real choice between keeping the status quo and allowing things to get much, much worse. Why not let them burn it to the ground then? Democrats did well after Bush and and presumably Trump would be far far worse. Maybe what we need to get change again is to remind independent voters how horrible a republican government can be. Yeah, that's what we need. Another 8 years of disaster then we can have 8 years of people complaining Democrats didn't do enough to make things better and maybe we should try disaster again in hopes of getting Democrats back after it.
In what world does that make sense?
8 years of disaster under Bush got us Obama. 8 years of Obama got us an inspiring, but not successful run by Sanders. Maybe we're actually more likely to get an actual leftish movement out of more Democratic governance than out of Republican? Maybe 8 years of Clinton can give us another more successful challenge from the left? While 8 years of Trump (or even 4) would leave us scrambling to get even a centrist Democrat back in charge?
thejeff wrote: Because not everything is impossible to get through Congress? I suspect that anything that gets through congress without a fight isn't going to be particularly beneficial to the average voter. People and organizations that shell out big bucks to political campaigns sure, but that's pretty much the case now, and so if you like the status quo then I'm sure voting for Clinton makes sense.
thejeff wrote: Because it's easier in our system to stop things and break them than to build? It's also easier to reduce funding, Clinton might not destroy government programs like medicare or social security, but if she's bowing to republican demands she might reduce their funding which would be disastrous in the next election.
thejeff wrote: Because the President has a much freer hand in foreign policy? Clinton might be more hawkish then Trump. Far more civil and experienced, which is important with peaceful negotiations, but I'm not sure voting for Clinton keeps America out of armed conflicts . . . especially in the Middle East.
thejeff wrote: Because the Supreme Court matters? Well Obama suggested a rather right leaning candidate and the republicans wouldn't even interview him. Supposing that he isn't withdrawn and he's rapidly approved after Clinton is elected, why should we suspect that Clinton's appointment would be more left leaning then Obama's choice? Trump would probably pick someone like Judge Judy because he only knows TV.
thejeff wrote: Even Obama has managed to get some things done with a Republican Congress. We even talked about incremental improvements in the ACA. But something as huge as another complete overhaul of healthcare - passed by an opposition party Congress? Not happening. So give up? Don't fight for something important? We can't do it so don't even bother trying.
thejeff wrote: Yeah, that's what we need. Another 8 years of disaster then we can have 8 years of people complaining Democrats didn't do enough to make things better and maybe we should try disaster again in hopes of getting Democrats back after it. What makes you think Trump would win a second term? I think he'd step down, he doesn't deal with criticism well, and, if the rumors are correct, he's already planning on passing actual job of making presidential policy off to Mike Pence so he can have more time to bask in the illusion of running the country. I think the rumors about him wanting his own TV empire are more likely true and at the first sign of hardship he pulls the cord and lets someone else get kicked around instead.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
That's no reason to hope someone will win an election.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Hitdice wrote: That's no reason to hope someone will win an election. My point is that it's no reason to vote for Clinton. Trump is a disaster but Clinton has to win people's votes, you can't just run on the "I'm not Trump" ticket. There are two other people on that ticket and one, Jill Stein, is better on the environment.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Trump has said he would nuke the Middle East, bring back torture (in a big way), advocates killing innocent people in order to punish terrorists, and just recently said if he was in charge he would have fired on Iranian boats but you're worried about Clinton.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Yeah, that's what we need. Another 8 years of disaster then we can have 8 years of people complaining Democrats didn't do enough to make things better and maybe we should try disaster again in hopes of getting Democrats back after it. What makes you think Trump would win a second term? I think he'd step down, he doesn't deal with criticism well, and, if the rumors are correct, he's already planning on passing actual job of making presidential policy off to Mike Pence so he can have more time to bask in the illusion of running the country. I think the rumors about him wanting his own TV empire are more likely true and at the first sign of hardship he pulls the cord and lets someone else get kicked around instead. I did say (or even 4). I doubt he'd actually quit. Or not run again honestly. His ego wouldn't let him. That's what losers do.
I agree he'd likely pass much of the work off to Pence, which doesn't make me feel much better, especially since he'd still be up there running his mouth off threatening foreign countries and the like.
But my main point, which you dropped, is that I don't think we move to the left in response to disastrous Republican terms. Sure, we'd get another Democrat in, but it's likely to be moderate centrist rather than a Sanders. Anything to stop the Republicans again! We're more likely to shift left starting with a centrist Democrat than reacting to a Republican.
Knight who says Meh wrote: Trump has said he would nuke the Middle East, bring back torture (in a big way), advocates killing innocent people in order to punish terrorists, and just recently said if he was in charge he would have fired on Iranian boats but you're worried about Clinton. Exactly.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: Hitdice wrote: That's no reason to hope someone will win an election. My point is that it's no reason to vote for Clinton. Trump is a disaster but Clinton has to win people's votes, you can't just run on the "I'm not Trump" ticket. There are two other people on that ticket and one, Jill Stein, is better on the environment. This is actually a really good point people keep forgetting. Kerry ran on an anyone but Bush platform and lost against a hugely disliked candidate. He only had reasons to vote against Bush, but didn't actually advertise the reasons to vote for him. I see Clinton followers making a lot of the same mistakes.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Because not everything is impossible to get through Congress? I suspect that anything that gets through congress without a fight isn't going to be particularly beneficial to the average voter. People and organizations that shell out big bucks to political campaigns sure, but that's pretty much the case now, and so if you like the status quo then I'm sure voting for Clinton makes sense.
thejeff wrote: Because it's easier in our system to stop things and break them than to build? It's also easier to reduce funding, Clinton might not destroy government programs like medicare or social security, but if she's bowing to republican demands she might reduce their funding which would be disastrous in the next election.
thejeff wrote: Because the President has a much freer hand in foreign policy? Clinton might be more hawkish then Trump. Far more civil and experienced, which is important with peaceful negotiations, but I'm not sure voting for Clinton keeps America out of armed conflicts . . . especially in the Middle East.
thejeff wrote: Because the Supreme Court matters? Well Obama suggested a rather right leaning candidate and the republicans wouldn't even interview him. Supposing that he isn't withdrawn and he's rapidly approved after Clinton is elected, why should we suspect that Clinton's appointment would be more left leaning then Obama's choice? Trump would probably pick someone like Judge Judy because he only knows TV.
thejeff wrote: Even Obama has managed to get some things done with a Republican Congress. We even talked about incremental improvements in the ACA. But something as huge as another complete overhaul of healthcare - passed by an opposition party Congress? Not happening. So give up? Don't fight for something important? We can't do it so don't even bother trying. Who said no fighting? Who said bowing to Republican demands? Who said through Congress without a fight?
We said fight for things that might be possible and even that's going to be a struggle. Not give up and do whatever Republicans want. But also don't waste the effort you'll need to get even incremental improvements on pie in the sky stuff that you can't achieve.
As for the Court: Garland's a moderate, sure. Picked as someone the Republicans should confirm without problems, because that's the reality when you're dealing with a Senate held by the opposition party. Despite that, he'd still be a drastic shift in the court's balance by all indications. Worst case, he'd be the swing vote instead of Kennedy. That's really a huge change. Kagan and Sotomayor were probably more liberal, but they were also replacing liberal Justices. Garland's replacing Scalia.
Clinton's choices might not be more left leaning than Obama's but they'll certainly be more so than Trump's. Trump does have plenty of experience with judges - he's spent plenty of time in court, being sued and counter suing. He'd likely nominate someone who'd ruled in his favor in the past.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Knight who says Meh wrote: Trump has said he would nuke the Middle East, bring back torture (in a big way), advocates killing innocent people in order to punish terrorists, and just recently said if he was in charge he would have fired on Iranian boats but you're worried about Clinton. To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her. I'm complaining that I don't think she's got the interests of the average American at heart. Make no mistake, if Trump is at all earnest about any of his claims he'll become one of history's greatest monsters, but do you think 8 years of Clinton will get us Bernie Sanders type of politician? Or will the DNC pull the same strings to get another status quo politician? What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances that would benefit the majority of Americans, and our only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: Why not let them burn it to the ground then? Democrats did well after Bush and and presumably Trump would be far far worse. Maybe what we need to get change again is to remind independent voters how horrible a republican government can be. Guy Humual wrote: Make no mistake, if Trump is at all earnest about any of his claims he'll become one of history's greatest monsters, but do you think 8 years of Clinton will get us Bernie Sanders type of politician? Or will the DNC pull the same strings to get another status quo politician? I don't believe that 4 or 8 years of Trump will get us a Bernie Sanders-type candidate either.
If anything, 'burning it to the ground' is likely to get an even more right-center candidate who can pull 'everyone' together. Any far-left candidate will look too extreme.
And the cost to those who can't get out of the burning house, as mentioned above, is just beyond imaginable. I'm not willing to sacrifice allies and their families' well-being on the off-chance that independent voters would suddenly become leftists.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote: Trump has said he would nuke the Middle East, bring back torture (in a big way), advocates killing innocent people in order to punish terrorists, and just recently said if he was in charge he would have fired on Iranian boats but you're worried about Clinton. To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her. I'm complaining that I don't think she's got the interests of the average American at heart. Make no mistake, if Trump is at all earnest about any of his claims he'll become one of history's greatest monsters, but do you think 8 years of Clinton will get us Bernie Sanders type of politician? Or will the DNC pull the same strings to get another status quo politician? What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances that would benefit the majority of Americans, and our only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels. I think with Clinton we get someone who has fought harder for "Bernie Sanders type of politics" and with more success than Bernie Sanders.
Guy Humual wrote: What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances that would benefit the majority of Americans, and our only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels. I agree. That's all bad. But... still an obvious / seemingly incontestable case to vote for her.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote: Trump has said he would nuke the Middle East, bring back torture (in a big way), advocates killing innocent people in order to punish terrorists, and just recently said if he was in charge he would have fired on Iranian boats but you're worried about Clinton. To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her. I'm complaining that I don't think she's got the interests of the average American at heart. Make no mistake, if Trump is at all earnest about any of his claims he'll become one of history's greatest monsters, but do you think 8 years of Clinton will get us Bernie Sanders type of politician? Or will the DNC pull the same strings to get another status quo politician? What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances that would benefit the majority of Americans, and our only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels. Well, we're responding to an argument that says 1) Trump should win so we learn from the disaster.
and 2) No point in supporting anyone who isn't going to promise us single-payer.
If your standards are radical change or let it burn, I guess there's no reason to support her.
I don't agree. I think Clinton will be a good President. Much better than the media caricature of her suggests. I'm sure I'll be mad at her much of the time, but that's been true of every President I remember, except the ones it was almost all the time. I'm sure Sanders would have pissed me off as well.
I think we're far more likely to get a Sanders style president following her than following Trump. Frankly I was astounded Sanders got as far as he did and I don't think the DNC really did much to ensure she won. And I say that as a Sanders voter.
Yeah, we'll have to push her. That's always going to be true. That's how politics works. You don't just wait for the saint to come along and fix everything. You work with what you've got and push them to be better.
Deal with it.
I'm sorry you're not inspired.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CrystalSeas wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Why not let them burn it to the ground then? Democrats did well after Bush and and presumably Trump would be far far worse. Maybe what we need to get change again is to remind independent voters how horrible a republican government can be. Guy Humual wrote: Make no mistake, if Trump is at all earnest about any of his claims he'll become one of history's greatest monsters, but do you think 8 years of Clinton will get us Bernie Sanders type of politician? Or will the DNC pull the same strings to get another status quo politician? I don't believe that 4 or 8 years of Trump will get us a Bernie Sanders-type candidate either.
If anything, 'burning it to the ground' is likely to get an even more right-center candidate who can pull 'everyone' together. Any far-left candidate will look too extreme.
And the cost to those who can't get out of the burning house, as mentioned above, is just beyond imaginable. I'm not willing to sacrifice allies and their families' well-being on the off-chance that independent voters would suddenly become leftists.
Imagine if we had a democratic president who didn't have to spend their entire administration putting out fires and rebuilding America after it was "burned down to the ground" again?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Knight who says Meh wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote: Trump has said he would nuke the Middle East, bring back torture (in a big way), advocates killing innocent people in order to punish terrorists, and just recently said if he was in charge he would have fired on Iranian boats but you're worried about Clinton. To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her. I'm complaining that I don't think she's got the interests of the average American at heart. Make no mistake, if Trump is at all earnest about any of his claims he'll become one of history's greatest monsters, but do you think 8 years of Clinton will get us Bernie Sanders type of politician? Or will the DNC pull the same strings to get another status quo politician? What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances that would benefit the majority of Americans, and our only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels. I think with Clinton we get someone who has fought harder for "Bernie Sanders type of politics" and with more success than Bernie Sanders. I've got a bridge to sell you
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Who said no fighting? Who said bowing to Republican demands? Who said through Congress without a fight?
We said fight for things that might be possible and even that's going to be a struggle. Not give up and do whatever Republicans want. But also don't waste the effort you'll need to get even incremental improvements on pie in the sky stuff that you can't achieve.
Here's what the opposition does: they fight every change you're looking to make. Back in the 90s you might have worked with the opposition, but you've seen these guys: they have almost no shame. If you go for incremental change they'll resist unless it's something they can get behind. That's what worries me about that.
thejeff wrote: As for the Court: Garland's a moderate, sure. Picked as someone the Republicans should confirm without problems, because that's the reality when you're dealing with a Senate held by the opposition party. Despite that, he'd still be a drastic shift in the court's balance by all indications. Worst case, he'd be the swing vote instead of Kennedy. That's really a huge change. Kagan and Sotomayor were probably more liberal, but they were also replacing liberal Justices. Garland's replacing Scalia. Not sure I'd classify Garland as a moderate, he's more of a corporatist, and that makes him a bit to the right of center in my books, but certainly far to the left of Scalia.
thejeff wrote: Clinton's choices might not be more left leaning than Obama's but they'll certainly be more so than Trump's. Trump does have plenty of experience with judges - he's spent plenty of time in court, being sued and counter suing. He'd likely nominate someone who'd ruled in his favor in the past. Maybe, before the election Trump was pro-choice, but now that he's running as a republican he's pro-life. I don't doubt that Trump will suggest someone that benefits Donald J Trump but if that's someone to the level of Scalia remains to be seen.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Caineach wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote: Trump has said he would nuke the Middle East, bring back torture (in a big way), advocates killing innocent people in order to punish terrorists, and just recently said if he was in charge he would have fired on Iranian boats but you're worried about Clinton. To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her. I'm complaining that I don't think she's got the interests of the average American at heart. Make no mistake, if Trump is at all earnest about any of his claims he'll become one of history's greatest monsters, but do you think 8 years of Clinton will get us Bernie Sanders type of politician? Or will the DNC pull the same strings to get another status quo politician? What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances that would benefit the majority of Americans, and our only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels. I think with Clinton we get someone who has fought harder for "Bernie Sanders type of politics" and with more success than Bernie Sanders. I've got a bridge to sell you That's great. Just know I will actually research your bridge and your ownership there of, just as I have actually researched the candidates running for President.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: you can't just run on the "I'm not Trump" ticket. There are two other people on that ticket and one, Jill Stein, is better on the environment. It's the "a vote for me has a good chance of stopping trump" ticket. Which in this election cycle i will take.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CBDunkerson wrote: Guy Humual wrote: What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances that would benefit the majority of Americans, and our only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels. I agree. That's all bad. But... still an obvious / seemingly incontestable case to vote for her. No, you can plug your nose and vote for Clinton, especially if you feel your state might go to Trump. It becomes hard to vote for her in blue states where she's almost guaranteed to win. Being "Not Trump" at this point is her biggest selling point and there are two other candidates also running on that ticket.
Guy Humual wrote:
I agree. That's all bad. But... still an obvious / seemingly incontestable case to vote for her.
No, you can plug your nose and vote for Clinton, especially if you feel your state might go to Trump. It becomes hard to vote for her in blue states where she's almost guaranteed to win. Being "Not Trump" at this point is her biggest selling point and there are two other candidates also running on that ticket. I'm going to look into jill stein. (and that vaccine thing) . I just don't want to have to take back every bad thing i said about the electoral college in 2000.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Guy Humual wrote: What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances that would benefit the majority of Americans, and our only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels. I agree. That's all bad. But... still an obvious / seemingly incontestable case to vote for her. No, you can plug your nose and vote for Clinton, especially if you feel your state might go to Trump. It becomes hard to vote for her in blue states where she's almost guaranteed to win. Being "Not Trump" at this point is her biggest selling point and there are two other candidates also running on that ticket. "That way Clinton will have a smaller mandate and republicans won't feel as pressured to work with her instead of against her. "
thejeff wrote: Well, we're responding to an argument that says 1) Trump should win so we learn from the disaster.
and 2) No point in supporting anyone who isn't going to promise us single-payer.
If your standards are radical change or let it burn, I guess there's no reason to support her.
I don't agree. I think Clinton will be a good President. Much better than the media caricature of her suggests. I'm sure I'll be mad at her much of the time, but that's been true of every President I remember, except the ones it was almost all the time. I'm sure Sanders would have pissed me off as well.
I think we're far more likely to get a Sanders style president following her than following Trump. Frankly I was astounded Sanders got as far as he did and I don't think the DNC really did much to ensure she won. And I say that as a Sanders voter.
Yeah, we'll have to push her. That's always going to be true. That's how politics works. You don't just wait for the saint to come along and fix everything. You work with what you've got and push...
No, I don't think we can't support someone who's not interested in single payer, there's a lot of other issues that are important, I also care about the environment for example. What I'm trying to stress to you is that I have no excitement for Hilary, I might have dread for Trump, but if he gets elected that's Hilary's fault not mine. She has a chance to excite and inspire the electorate, I don't even care about all her supposed scandals, just give me something to vote for besides "not Trump"
Knight who says Meh wrote:
"That way Clinton will have a smaller mandate and republicans won't feel as pressured to work with her instead of against her. "
Yes, because in 2008 the republicans were happy to work with Obama.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Republican Party Platform
If you want to browse through it...
Highlights include; reversing Supreme Court's decision on gays being people, getting rid of all those silly restrictions on political finance and disclosure, and preventing you from making end of life decisions.
Fun reading.
Why is a city council member from the town of Lexington, MA (population 31,000) even being considered for president? Seriously... how the f$$% is that a thing?
BigNorseWolf wrote: Guy Humual wrote: you can't just run on the "I'm not Trump" ticket. There are two other people on that ticket and one, Jill Stein, is better on the environment. It's the "a vote for me has a good chance of stopping trump" ticket. Which in this election cycle i will take.
I think in swing states that's a good ticket to be on. As I've said she doesn't inspire me, being the "Not Trump" candidate isn't enough by itself to want me to vote for her, but in a state where the election could be close "best chance of stopping Trump" is a far better ticket then just "Not Trump"
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Imagine if we had a democratic president who didn't have to spend their entire administration putting out fires and rebuilding America after it was "burned down to the ground" again?
I think this is a fair point. I really dread Trump but regardless of who the next republican president is that seems to be the natural flow of things. The republicans stress fiscal responsibility and small government up until they point they get into office, then the spend like drunken sailors, starting fights all over the place, wreak the place, and then a democrat comes into office to try to clean the place up. Trump just looks like the drunkenest, surliest sailor the republicans have ever given shore leave to, and their last sailor started two wars and crashed the economy.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Guy Humual wrote: To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her. I'm complaining that I don't think she's got the interests of the average American at heart. I can understand being uninspired.
I don't really understand thinking she doesn't have the interests of the average American at heart, based on her history. But whatever. If your "only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels" then you're not paying attention to anything beyond what the same people who've tried to demonize her since Bill's first term as Arkansas governor want you to believe. In sum, you've been lied to, and have accepted it as fact.
Incremental change is positive in no small part because the opposite usually involves people being shot and riots occurring. If that's what you want, well, bully for you. I'll take incremental over massive collateral damage caused by revolution 99 44/100s percent of the time.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Why not let them burn it to the ground then? Democrats did well after Bush and and presumably Trump would be far far worse. Maybe what we need to get change again is to remind independent voters how horrible a republican government can be. As you have a hetero white penis, I'm sure you'll still manage to get by under a Trump presidency, with Pence and the alt-Right Congress ratf!cking up all of the social progress made from FDR. However, the majority of the people in this country won't do as well as you. I'm far worse then that, I'm Canadian, so I won't even feel the direct impact of Trump.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Policies aside, look at how Trump is running his campaign and ask yourself,
If he wins, will future elections be better or worse?
Guy Humual wrote: Pillbug Toenibbler wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Why not let them burn it to the ground then? Democrats did well after Bush and and presumably Trump would be far far worse. Maybe what we need to get change again is to remind independent voters how horrible a republican government can be. As you have a hetero white penis, I'm sure you'll still manage to get by under a Trump presidency, with Pence and the alt-Right Congress ratf!cking up all of the social progress made from FDR. However, the majority of the people in this country won't do as well as you. I'm far worse then that, I'm Canadian, so I won't even feel the direct impact of Trump. You'll feel it alright when U.S. citizens start pouring over your border. Start hoarding your beer (mmm, Unibroue), poutine, civil rights, and poutine now!
thunderspirit wrote: Guy Humual wrote: To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her. I'm complaining that I don't think she's got the interests of the average American at heart. I can understand being uninspired.
I don't really understand thinking she doesn't have the interests of the average American at heart, based on her history. But whatever. If your "only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels" then you're not paying attention to anything beyond what the same people who've tried to demonize her since Bill's first term as Arkansas governor want you to believe. In sum, you've been lied to, and have accepted it as fact.
Incremental change is positive in no small part because the opposite usually involves people being shot and riots occurring. If that's what you want, well, bully for you. I'll take incremental over massive collateral damage caused by revolution 99 44/100s percent of the time. I could be inspired by 1992 Clinton, I'd vote for that lady, heck even the 2000 senator Clinton, but the 2016 Clinton? I just don't see anything that she's interested in fighting for . . . except maybe being the first female president.
I don't buy into Benghazi, the email "scandal" wasn't even an issue, and the Whitewater and murdering whiteness business is a ridiculous conspiracy theory fitting for Glen Beck and Alex Jones but not for the moderately informed voter. The person that turns me off of Hilary Clinton is Hilary Clinton.
Knight who says Meh wrote: Policies aside, look at how Trump is running his campaign and ask yourself,
If he wins, will future elections be better or worse?
Look how blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, and damn near incompetent Trump's campaign is... and 40+% of this country is still willing to vote for him. Even if he loses, and it's no guarantee he will, the GOP and Trump's basket of deplorables will still think his message is a winner.
What happens when they find candidates who can sell that message with fake sincerity and a veneer of competence?
What happens when those candidates run in the 2018, 2020, and beyond races against Dems--Blue Dogs, moderates, and progressives alike--whom the now Alt-Reich GOP and SuperPACs will attempt to tar with the same bullsh!t they've been flinging at Clinton for 25+ years?
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Pillbug Toenibbler wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Why not let them burn it to the ground then? Democrats did well after Bush and and presumably Trump would be far far worse. Maybe what we need to get change again is to remind independent voters how horrible a republican government can be. As you have a hetero white penis, I'm sure you'll still manage to get by under a Trump presidency, with Pence and the alt-Right Congress ratf!cking up all of the social progress made from FDR. However, the majority of the people in this country won't do as well as you. I'm far worse then that, I'm Canadian, so I won't even feel the direct impact of Trump. You'll feel it alright when U.S. citizens start pouring over your border. Start hoarding your beer (mmm, Unibroue), poutine, civil rights, and poutine now! Well we have a big country, and we can always brew more beer, but please RSVP this time. We were expecting a big influx after Bush got his second term but it turns out we had an over abundance of toques.
Guy Humual wrote: Well we have a big country, and we can always brew more beer, but please RSVP this time. We were expecting a big influx after Bush got his second term but it turns out we had an over abundance of toques. Sarnia sent the last bunch back, just a couple weeks ago.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote: Policies aside, look at how Trump is running his campaign and ask yourself,
If he wins, will future elections be better or worse?
Look how blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, and damn near incompetent Trump's campaign is... and 40+% of this country is still willing to vote for him. Even if he loses, and it's no guarantee he will, the GOP and Trump's basket of deplorables will still think his message is a winner.
What happens when they find candidates who can sell that message with fake sincerity and a veneer of competence?
What happens when those candidates run in the 2018, 2020, and beyond races against Dems--Blue Dogs, moderates, and progressives alike--whom the now Alt-Reich GOP and SuperPACs will attempt to tar with the same bullsh!t they've been flinging at Clinton for 25+ years? But it'll be worse if he wins. Much worse.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
"Clinton might not do what she claims she will do."
"Trump might do what he claims he will do."
If you have any understanding of game theory you should understand why in this case statement one is a better choice than statement two.
This could be an election where neither candidate gets 50% of the popular vote. I am hoping that Trump gets destroyed. As I've said before I'd love to see him come in below Gary Johnson. I've also made it clear that I'm worried about Clinton, Jill Stein doesn't seem to be in a position to bleed voters from Clinton, but if Clinton starts sliding back to the right, Gary Johnson could pick up some voters from her as well.
The scary thing about Trump is that even if he comes in 3rd, that still means that millions of voters saw what he was about and said "That's my boy!"
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Irontruth wrote: Why is a city council member from the town of Lexington, MA (population 31,000) even being considered for president? Seriously... how the f@%+ is that a thing? As opposed to a tv game show host and serial business failure?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her. I've never understood why people need to be inspired to make a rational decision. Selecting the person who leads the country should be the textbook definition of a decision which should not be made on the basis of emotion, but somehow it always is for far too many people.
Irontruth wrote: Why is a city council member from the town of Lexington, MA (population 31,000) even being considered for president? Seriously... how the f@%+ is that a thing? Don't worry. It's not really a thing. No more than it was 4 years ago.
Or than whatever qualifications any of the other protest candidates have.
Guy Humual wrote: This could be an election where neither candidate gets 50% of the popular vote. I am hoping that Trump gets destroyed. As I've said before I'd love to see him come in below Gary Johnson. I've also made it clear that I'm worried about Clinton, Jill Stein doesn't seem to be in a position to bleed voters from Clinton, but if Clinton starts sliding back to the right, Gary Johnson could pick up some voters from her as well.
The scary thing about Trump is that even if he comes in 3rd, that still means that millions of voters saw what he was about and said "That's my boy!"
Yeah, that's the scary thing all right. Chances are very, very slim he'll come in behind Johnson. Much lower than his chances of winning.
I'm not sure what you mean about Clinton. I'd assume that if she moved to the right she'd be more likely to pick up voters from Johnson than lose them. She might lose some to Stein.
Matt Filla wrote: Guy Humual wrote: To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her. I've never understood why people need to be inspired to make a rational decision. Selecting the person who leads the country should be the textbook definition of a decision which should not be made on the basis of emotion, but somehow it always is for far too many people. Maybe it's because we're picking a leader, someone who's not only going to be looking out for our own interests but representing us on a global stage. Sure Alan from accounting might be the sensible choice, but Steve from advertising can sell himself better so everyone votes for Steve.
thejeff wrote: Yeah, that's the scary thing all right. Chances are very, very slim he'll come in behind Johnson. Much lower than his chances of winning.
I'm not sure what you mean about Clinton. I'd assume that if she moved to the right she'd be more likely to pick up voters from Johnson than lose them. She might lose some to Stein.
usually when given a choice between a republican and a right wing liberal people choose the republican. Clinton might pick up more money by moving to the right, but I'm not sure she'll pick up voters.
thejeff wrote: Irontruth wrote: Why is a city council member from the town of Lexington, MA (population 31,000) even being considered for president? Seriously... how the f@%+ is that a thing? Don't worry. It's not really a thing. No more than it was 4 years ago.
Or than whatever qualifications any of the other protest candidates have. Well, she is polling higher than any Green's percentage of the vote since Nader in 2000. [Braces for deluge of "Nader caused Bush!" comments]
Anyway, I'll be back later to tell a tale of how I used stories of Hillary Clinton to get a Trump voter to, for a second anyway, sympathize with undocumented workers.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff, I think Guy means that if Clinton moves to the right, her more liberal supporters might say, "Well, she's basically as liberal as GJ, f~*! it."
Which seems unlikely to me, but people do tend to perform an amazing black hole of research on third-party candidates. Gary Johnson wants to abolish the income tax and capital-gains tax and put all the weight on the sales tax. He's incredibly radical.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: I mean, I start a lot of my posts this way.
Guy Humual wrote: In the primaries Clinton didn't seem very interested in single payer, she took the stance that they'd have to dismantle Obama care before they could get single payer, and while that might have been a ploy, something to paint Bernie's plan as foolish or too idealistic, it seems strange to me that she moved against single payer and instead move towards strengthening Obama care. Now if I were cynical I'd assume it had something to do with campaign contributions. Maybe she's still willing to fight for single payer but she's been out fundraising, pulling in way more money then Trump, and I believe pharmaceutical and insurance companies have been contributors to her campaign. So, if I were cynical, I wouldn't expect her to rock the boat too much.
Clinton is an incrementalist, and, to my knowledge, always has been. It defines her strategies. I personally feel that Democrats need to fight harder on issues that they've allowed the right to redefine—especially reclaiming the term "socialism". Bernie has proven that the fight has been possible for a long time. A lot of Democrats just didn't want to risk it. This is what has caused the country's rightward slide.
Caineach wrote:
Except that allows your opponents to control the narrative on what is normal and shift the baseline of what is acceptable towards their views.
Basically, this. Fight for what you want. Vote for what you can get. Clinton's mistake, in my opinion, is that she fights for what she expects to get, instead of what she should really fight for.
I really dislike Jill Stein. She does not strike me as an especially scientific candidate (she panders to anti-vaxxers and has said some really s#&#ty things about autism). Moreover, she will not win. Not even Johnson has a chance, and he's at least being acknowledged. Stein is an un-candidate.
If Trump wins, the alt-right wins. Neonazis win. The KKK wins. These are not people I want to win s$*~.
|
