2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raoul said:
Not sure why you are arguing about such an obvious fact. People in Democratic politics view Sanders and Warren as the standard bearers for the progressive wing of the party. No one disputes this. Ive followed Sanders career for over 30 years and Warren's for the past few. There is very little between them worth distinguishing.
Click to expand...

Because the Sandersnistas obvious don't agree with your assertion, and I happen to agree with them.

Where you stand depends on where you sit, to a conservative, both you and I are bleeding heart liberals, but obviously we aren't the same ideologically. Just because two people represent the same group and share a lot of ideals together doesn't mean they are identical. Nuances matter.
 
Americano said:
Trump is an asshole and that doesn't matter to me. He says asshole stuff. I got over it. I'm more concerned about actions than I am about style points or being offended. I would never base my vote on a single comment by either candidate.

Hillary presents herself in a more polished and practiced manner, but that counts for nothing to me. Underneath the $600 haircut and wool pantsuit and scripted speech lives a monster who has grown enormously wealthy from a life of "public service". Her ACTIONS are despicable and put our country at risk, so she can benefit. She tries to hide these flaws behind a veneer of feigned civility.

Trump has said more than a few things I didn't like. He's a pushy New York jerk. I grew up with people just like him and it doesn't bother me - most of them are great people once you get past the exterior. Trump's off-the-cuff remarks have nothing to do with his overall vision for the country. Any serious decision will be made after proper reflection and discussion with advisers. Trump's flaws are font and center for all to see, with no apologies. Somehow he has used his unconventional approach and personality to rise high in the world of business and entertainment. That's the way he achieves success and it's not going to change. If he wins the presidency it will be on his terms.

I'd rather have an asshole running the country. We've been too nice for too long.
Click to expand...

He's a complete joke of a candidate. The sort of thing you dream up in an SNL sketch.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Because the Sandersnistas obvious don't agree with your assertion, and I happen to agree with them.

Where you stand depends on where you sit, to a conservative, both you and I are bleeding heart liberals, but obviously we aren't the same ideologically. Just because two people represent the same group and share a lot of ideals together doesn't mean they are identical. Nuances matter.
Click to expand...

They don't matter when discussing Sanders and Warren since a vast majority of Bernie bots would be supporting her if it was she who ran instead of him. They occupy the same place within the Democratic spectrum.
 
Insanity said:
The sad part is that elections are nearly always about choosing the lesser evil; one who can do the least harm. At the end day, these are blood sucking, power hungry assholes; most of whom are not in this to serve the public but themselves.
Click to expand...

What is the solution then ? Having a triumvirate ?
 
Americano said:
I find the overreaction and attempt to characterize supporters of the Second Amendment as murderous maniacs to be bigoted and offensive.
Click to expand...

To be fair it was Trump who was implying that all 2nd Amendment proponents are potential assassins. The media are just reporting on his comments. He is a gift that keeps on giving if you want a doofus in charge.
 
Report: Secret Service spoke to Trump campaign about second amendment comments
The US Secret Service, the law enforcement branch tasked with protecting the lives of the president, vice president and presidential candidates, told CNN today that the Secret Service has spoken to Donald Trump’s campaign in response to comments the candidate made yesterday that seemed to suggest that supporters of the second amendment should take matters into their own hands if Hillary Clinton were elected.

“There has been more than one conversation” in relation to the remarks, according to CNN.

The latest controversy to embroil the Republican nominee followed a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, during which Trump elaborated on the next president’s power to appoint supreme court justices. “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the second amendment,” Trump said. “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”
 
Americano said:
I'd rather have an asshole running the country. We've been too nice for too long.
Click to expand...


Yes, two full scale invasions of muslim countries with 10 + year occupations . . .

Countless drone hits on perceived enemies in several countries with loads of collateral damage on innocents . . .

Torture galore . . .

Historical records of citizens in prisons, even greater than Stalin´s Russia . . .

The most well armed predatory police force the world has ever seen . . .

651 people shot and killed by this police force thus far in 2016 . . .

Yeah, what we need is an asshole like Trump. The US has been way too nice for so long. More asses need to be kicked. Go Trump. U-S-A!!! No apologies!

VidaRed said:
Agreed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Americano said:
Trump is an asshole and that doesn't matter to me. He says asshole stuff. I got over it. I'm more concerned about actions than I am about style points or being offended. I would never base my vote on a single comment by either candidate.

Hillary presents herself in a more polished and practiced manner, but that counts for nothing to me. Underneath the $600 haircut and wool pantsuit and scripted speech lives a monster who has grown enormously wealthy from a life of "public service". Her ACTIONS are despicable and put our country at risk, so she can benefit. She tries to hide these flaws behind a veneer of feigned civility.

Trump has said more than a few things I didn't like. He's a pushy New York jerk. I grew up with people just like him and it doesn't bother me - most of them are great people once you get past the exterior. Trump's off-the-cuff remarks have nothing to do with his overall vision for the country. Any serious decision will be made after proper reflection and discussion with advisers. Trump's flaws are font and center for all to see, with no apologies. Somehow he has used his unconventional approach and personality to rise high in the world of business and entertainment. That's the way he achieves success and it's not going to change. If he wins the presidency it will be on his terms.

I'd rather have an asshole running the country. We've been too nice for too long.
Click to expand...

I really don't get this, though. You essentially say that they're both assholes, but that it's better to elect the one who is openly an asshole. I mean...why? I get you don't like Hilary, but why is Trump any better for openly being a terrible person?

And no, he's not just a pushy New York jerk. He's a genuinely horrible and contemptible person. He is a bully; someone who mocks those he perceives as weaker than him. When he insults the family of a dead soldier, he isn't just being 'flawed' or a 'jerk', he's openly targeting someone for hatred and vitriol to further his own agenda. You think it wasn't awful for the family of the soldier in question to have to relive the experience again in the public spotlight? Especially since plenty of Trump's supporters would've hurled abuse at them. You don't think Trump's vitriol towards Mexicans/Muslims won't inspire some of his supporters to be especially nasty to people of those persuasions? The difference between the average person you know and Donald Trump spouting utter shite is that Trump now has people who religious follow his every word, and that's both dangerous and irresponsible when some of the stuff he's saying is incredibly hateful.

And you say any serious decision will be made with his advisers after proper reflection, but he's recently discussed appointing his fecking daughter to an important state role.:lol:

And he'll be surrounded by people who believe climate change to be a hoax or something that requires no action - a view that is a bit embarrassing for anyone with any sort of remote seniority within politics to hold. People who don't believe in LGBT rights. People who are only there for their own self-interest.

And your last statement is a complete paradox. You say we've been "nice" for too long, yet oppose electing Clinton due to her being a 'live monster'.:lol:

What the feck does the statement too nice mean, anyway? How has the US been being too 'nice'?
 
New emails released today. Although not overly damaging, they reinforce the idea that she is corrupt.
 
Cheesy said:
I think the reason people aren't scared of Clinton's record is simply because of how terrifying the prospect of Trump is. When he is the alternative, someone who is quite shady in general seems angelic in comparison, and it's easy to see why.

I actually do agree with a lot of your last paragraph, admittedly. Global warming is by far the biggest challenge we face today and as a global dominant power with plenty of influence the US should be fronting that. But again, even if Clinton's approach to that will be moderate and nowhere enough, it's surely still better than the alternative...someone who doesn't believe in it at all and thinks it's a Chinese hoax, representing a party who actually brainwash children on the issue to conform to their own views.

And while the thought of compromise with the so-called Ayn Rand worshipers may not seem ideal, what's the alternative? For what it's worth, I actually think someone like Sanders could've won this one being up against Trump because Trump himself is so awful and his own anti-establishment message wouldn't have gone well against someone like Sanders. But, in politics in general, how can you just ignore the other side? I mean, yeah, I can't stand Republicans and the thought of a politician who can enact genuine, meaningful change is fantastic...but if people don't buy into it, what then? I think this would've been a great chance for Sanders, but in another election it might have backfired. And it's not as if you can just go cease power if someone much, much worse gets in.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think there are any easy answers or that Bernie was the cure-all.
If you stop looking at them in terms of their damage to others, but in terms of the success of their politics, you have to admire the GOP. They knew the Dems would compromise so they pushed them as right as they could. You look at the major legislative achievements of Clinton and Obama, the 2 post-Reagan Dems: NAFTA (GHWB proposed, Dem Congress rejected but when Clinton proposed it was accepted), Crime bill (a bid to outflank the Republicans on the right, now some within the GOP see it as a problem), welfare reform (Bill Clinton rejected it twice but accepted it the 3rd time, ended the remnants of the New Deal), deregulating Wall St (FDR is dead), and Obamacare (Romneycare). These are moderate GOP policies, all because when the Dems step right for compromise, the GOP steps right to get more.
You look at their ruthless success at the local level; they dominate the small policies that affect daily life.
I'm not sure how once can deal with them but adopting their single-minded focus might help. And with Bernie making explicitly left-wing demands on every area in every speech, and growing in popularity (which matched the popularity of some of his positions), it would have been a possible start.

The Reps have utterly lost on social issues, it has to be said. But those help them get the partisan and committed voters to vote in numbers in every election.



On a side note about global warming: I think we're past most red lines, it's time to put the money into relocating cities and damage limitation (like heat-resistant crops).
 
berbatrick said:
Yes, I don't think there are any easy answers or that Bernie was the cure-all.
If you stop looking at them in terms of their damage to others, but in terms of the success of their politics, you have to admire the GOP. They knew the Dems would compromise so they pushed them as right as they could. You look at the major legislative achievements of Clinton and Obama, the 2 post-Reagan Dems: NAFTA (GHWB proposed, Dem Congress rejected but when Clinton proposed it was accepted), Crime bill (a bid to outflank the Republicans on the right, now some within the GOP see it as a problem), welfare reform (Bill Clinton rejected it twice but accepted it the 3rd time, ended the remnants of the New Deal), deregulating Wall St (FDR is dead), and Obamacare (Romneycare). These are moderate GOP policies, all because when the Dems step right for compromise, the GOP steps right to get more.
You look at their ruthless success at the local level; they dominate the small policies that affect daily life.
I'm not sure how once can deal with them but adopting their single-minded focus might help. And with Bernie making explicitly left-wing demands on every area in every speech, and growing in popularity (which matched the popularity of some of his positions), it would have been a possible start.

The Reps have utterly lost on social issues, it has to be said. But those help them get the partisan and committed voters to vote in numbers in every election.



On a side note about global warming: I think we're past most red lines, it's time to put the money into relocating cities and damage limitation (like heat-resistant crops).
Click to expand...

Suppose that is sort of reassuring in a sense; arguments like gay rights, abortion etc on which they've often been completely hardline are growing more and more outdated thankfully.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Is that technically corruption or favouritism? I thought corruption was for personal benefit...but in this case it was for a charitable foundation, right?
Click to expand...
It's very similar to the "cash for access" scandal over here.
People donating huge amounts to her foundation then gaining access to members of the State Department.
 
Adisa said:
It's very similar to the "cash for access" scandal over here.
People donating huge amounts to her foundation then gaining access to members of the State Department.
Click to expand...

I believe it's something that is common in politics across all countries. Not that it should be acceptable...but still a multiple levels less than what Trump is spewing out. Take estate tax for example...which is paid by less than 1% of the population...and yet it features in his macro economic plan. He plays favorites to fellow rich people (family in cabinet, friends as economic advisers), Clinton does it to donors...and tbh Trump is doing ot overtly and a far grander scale.

As Stalin says "A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic" Trump does it so overtly, en masse that people still can't grasp the extent of his ego and danger.
 
@Sir Matt

What is the geopolitical risk to the US if Trump launches a unilateral strike on any nation other than Russia or China?
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
I believe it's something that is common in politics across all countries. Not that it should be acceptable...but still a multiple levels less than what Trump is spewing out. Take estate tax for example...which is paid by less than 1% of the population...and yet it features in his macro economic plan. He plays favorites to fellow rich people (family in cabinet, friends as economic advisers), Clinton does it to donors...and tbh Trump is doing ot overtly and a far grander scale.

As Stalin says "A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic" Trump does it so overtly, en masse that people still can't grasp the extent of his ego and danger.
Click to expand...


We accept everything that is slightly better than what Trump might do? (knowing that he couldn´t do anything for 4 years against the will of congress and the executive institutions)

The main selling point of Clinton during the primaries was “electability” and now it is “lesser of two evil”. And really, the issue that seems to have destroyed Trump is, that he mocked a dead GI. That is certainly tasteless, but it is not even in the top1000 of things that should disqualify him or Hillary. The election breaks down into complete lunacy on both sides with very little useful debate on the fringes of both parties.

Clinton is an openly corrupt and a crazy warmonger, who doesnt have the solution to a single of the big challenges (climate change; criminal justice reform; economic stagnation; foreign policy; technical and societal changes), but that is okay, because she is better than Trump? :confused: If these are really the standards of our democratic culture, democracy has no value. The electorate is just too stupid and partisan. Just draw the POTUS and members of congress and save all the money of the election shit-show. In 99 out of 100 times you´ll end up with people who is more qualified than Trump or Clinton.
 
Arruda said:
With whom?
Click to expand...

Let it go. These kinds of persons see the world from a bubble. They truly feel the US does nothing to stop terrorism, coddles foreigners too much, wants to take away all their guns, immigrants are taking away jobs (they are but the kind of jobs no one takes to start with) and bringing death and mayhem, etc. No point in asking these kinds of questions as cognitive dissonance clouds the reality.
 
PedroMendez said:
We accept everything that is slightly better than what Trump might do? (knowing that he couldn´t do anything for 4 years against the will of congress and the executive institutions)

The main selling point of Clinton during the primaries was “electability” and now it is “lesser of two evil”. And really, the issue that seems to have destroyed Trump is, that he mocked a dead GI. That is certainly tasteless, but it is not even in the top1000 of things that should disqualify him or Hillary. The election breaks down into complete lunacy on both sides with very little useful debate on the fringes of both parties.

Clinton is an openly corrupt and a crazy warmonger, who doesnt have the solution to a single of the big challenges (climate change; criminal justice reform; economic stagnation; foreign policy; technical and societal changes), but that is okay, because she is better than Trump? :confused: If these are really the standards of our democratic culture, democracy has no value. The electorate is just too stupid and partisan. Just draw the POTUS and members of congress and save all the money of the election shit-show. In 99 out of 100 times you´ll end up with people who is more qualified than Trump or Clinton.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is what I spent 10 posts trying to say but everytime I got it wrong :lol:
 
PedroMendez said:
We accept everything that is slightly better than what Trump might do? (knowing that he couldn´t do anything for 4 years against the will of congress and the executive institutions)

The main selling point of Clinton during the primaries was “electability” and now it is “lesser of two evil”. And really, the issue that seems to have destroyed Trump is, that he mocked a dead GI. That is certainly tasteless, but it is not even in the top1000 of things that should disqualify him or Hillary. The election breaks down into complete lunacy on both sides with very little useful debate on the fringes of both parties.

Clinton is an openly corrupt and a crazy warmonger, who doesnt have the solution to a single of the big challenges (climate change; criminal justice reform; economic stagnation; foreign policy; technical and societal changes), but that is okay, because she is better than Trump? :confused: If these are really the standards of our democratic culture, democracy has no value. The electorate is just too stupid and partisan. Just draw the POTUS and members of congress and save all the money of the election shit-show. In 99 out of 100 times you´ll end up with people who is more qualified than Trump or Clinton.
Click to expand...

I really don't see the point on fantasy. What we have is Trump vs Clinton and yeah, as long as Clinton is better than Trump, it should be OK. The fact that there is no 'perfect candidate' is something that is part and parcel of any democratic process.

India has recently implemented a (flawed) NOTA (None of the above) option in voting...so that people may choose if they don't like either. I think this is a good idea and when NOTA votes are greater than a certain %, then both candidates are DQ'd and parties to nominate someone else and continue the election. But again such processes is way into the future and not a current reality, so we choose what we have best now and that seems to be Clinton.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
I really don't see the point on fantasy. What we have is Trump vs Clinton and yeah, as long as Clinton is better than Trump, it should be OK. The fact that there is no 'perfect candidate' is something that is part and parcel of any democratic process.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with fantasies or “what-could-have-been” scenarios. We need to change the democratic culture or things could turn rather ugly. Trump isn´t an on/off, but the result of developments, that will continue, not just in the USA but all over the world. We need to understand how we came to this point and we need to learn from it. The whole campaign of Hillary is very much part of the problem. In many ways it is the prime example of everything that is wrong with our political systems. To shrug that off by referring to the potential horror of Trump is really missing the point.
 
Last edited:
PedroMendez said:
It has nothing to do with fantasies or “what-could-have-been” scenarios. We need to change the democratic culture or things could turn rather ugly. Trump isn´t an on/off, but the result of developments, that will continue, not just in the USA but all over the world. We need to understand how we came to this point and we need to learn from it. The whole campaign of Hillary is very much part of the problem. In many ways it is the prime example of everything that is wrong with our politic systems. To shrug that off by referring to the potential horror of Trump is really missing the point.
Click to expand...

What exactly does this mean ?
 
berbatrick said:
That sustained lesser-evilism and blind tolerance for anything "your" side does fuels Farage and Trump.
Click to expand...

Raoul said:
I doubt the rise of Trump is down to something so simple.
Click to expand...

I do think he makes a fair point, actually. It's obviously not just that, as there are many more factors at play, but going for lesser evils on a consistent basis can end up alienating large portions of a voter-base and lead to long-term division.

Look at the Labour party. Their switch to a more moderate approach under Blair was immensely successful for a sustained period...yet they now appear to be on the brink of collapse because the membership vastly prefers a perceived anti-establishment option who isn't what typically would win an election or be expected of a major party, but appeals to voters. Many feel the moderate option is still better, yet the party membership is no longer willing to tolerate the things they believe the party have done fundamentally wrong for the sake of a greater chance of government.

Likewise, someone such as Farage largely built UKIP's support by capitalising on disillusioned Tories at first who felt like the party was doing nothing on the issue of Europe. Those who switched from Tory to UKIP in 2015 probably knew they were risking a Labour alternative who wouldn't give them a referendum...yet still did it anyway. Farage then further built support for Brexit by capitalising upon Labour disillusionment of a different kind to Corbyn supporters in the north.

The Dems have arguably been lucky this time due to the fact that their opponent is so abhorrent and incompetent and within an extremely divided and outdated party. But with a more competent opposition next time? It's perfectly possible the Republicans could one day capitalise on frustrations within the Dems (such as those of Sanders supporters) if they become a lot more widespread and mainstream in years to come. Not that it's an immediate pressing issue, but I'm not sure it's one that should be dismissed at hand.
 
Feck, this Michael Cohen is an argumentative clown. Typical counsel mindset - defend your client/person.

Love how all these Trump supporters pivot to "we need to keep talking about the economy, keeping people safe, (etc.) what Americans truly want." And yet there's barely ever a mention of a solid, feasible plan from Trump to fix all that. Just circus MC rhetoric.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.