The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Formless]

Simon, I'm just going to point out that right now I'm trying to argue with two other people, and its very hard to do so let alone have a third who keeps trying to add yet more commentary. You might have noticed that most of my posts in response to TRR and Aly keep coming after one of the other two has responded to me. I don't want to say it, but right now I feel dogpiled on, and since you aren't adding as much to the conversation as they are, you are essentially the straw that would be breaking my back. Okay? I want you to know that because right now it seems like I cannot argue with all three of you at once, and you are the one I am most inclined to concede points to to begin with.

Though, since you brought up health care I will note that this year Colorado will be voting on switching to a single payer system. Perhaps that biases me? Well, its one reason I like to pay attention to local politics, because I don't see such a system being proposed at the federal level any time soon.

(this post has been edited for minor clarifications)

So... we should not be terrified of a return to the racism of the 1940s, this is politics as usual and not different from the position of the republicans for 20 years?

You will excuse me if I find the argument you just made (intentionally or not) laughable. Your position here is more than slightly incoherent.

Actually, I don't fear that we will regress that far just because of a Trump election. Culture at large would have to regress, not just the office of the PotUS. I would like to see evidence that he could actually get away with anything unbecoming, or whether he would get shut down. There are lots of examples in US history of presidents that were basically powerless because Congress and the Senate were doing all of the hard work, including shutting down the PotUS at every turn. Granted, most of those examples are from the 19'th century, but it does show that the President is only as powerful as he is allowed to be. Since Trump is not liked by either the Democrats nor really with the Republican Party despite being their nominee, I can actually see it as a valid possibility that he won't be allowed to do any of the things he wants to do, especially if it gets expensive (like a mass deportation would be).

This proves to me that you have not been paying attention. I was not referring to mexicans. I was referring to Muslims. Oh, dont worry, he hates mexicans too. Including US citizens of mexican descent. But I was referring to Muslims.

And the War on Terror doesn't seem the slightest bit racist to you? Come on, Aly, you know better. Trump is offerring his alternative take on the same damn concept, only one which won't require him to fabricate evidence against other countries and sending troops abroad. I don't like it, but I know where it is coming from. That's why I see it as merely a variation of existing themes, not a complete change in form for the GOP.

Wait. Now it makes sense.

You are actually shifting your goal posts from your original argument in a self-defeating fashion. Your original argument was the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are not substantially different from their parties of the last 20 years. Except when challenged on this, you appeal to a trend toward rancidity in the republican party for the last 20 years.

Uh, yes? And no. The goals have stayed put, its just that you are taking a domestic view of the last two decades while I'm focusing on international actions. The last twenty years completely destroyed two different countries, plus Syria albeit through indirect channels rather than by an invasion of US troops. And it just so happened that all three countries are Arab and Islamic. Do you really think that is a coincidence? The main difference, then, is that Arabs and Muslims in the US will be experiencing greater suffering under Trump, whereas in the past it was people far off on another continent that were sufferring. Will it mark a difference in kind or of magnitude? I think you feel more affected by it when its Trump because he would be attacking the rights of people who are, in fact, in your own neighborhood. But its the same thing, only closer to home.

Has the republican party been bad for a while and getting worse? Absolutely. But Donald Trump is the first candidate they have had for the oval office who has accurately reflected their inner rancidity. There might even have been an inflection point (say, the advent of the Tea Party) where the rate of change increased for the worse.

So if you understand that point, why are you accusing me of goal post shifting? I think he is an expression of something that has festered for a long time, but I don't think he is worse. Just more obvious.

Is Hillary Clinton markedly different in attitude or policy from the majority of her party? Not really. Has the democratic party been getting slowly but surely better for some time? Yes. Might we be seeing an inflection point where the rate of change improves? Probably.

So how exactly is one of these candidates not to be vastly preferred over the others using the logic of your argument here?

How exactly are we doing anything but trying to stem the tide of a regression back to the attitudes and policies that--by your own argument--resemble the attitudes and policies of the 1940s?

You just beat yourself.

The fact that she has, in her capacity as Secretary, committed crimes against the peace, I don't think she should ever hold such a high office where she can command the military directly. TRR called me anti-American, but you know what? As an American, I feel uniquely qualified to hold that title. I think that four more years of more of the same under Hillary is no better than four years of domestic abuses by Trump. I can see beyond the boarders of my own nation. I won't vote for either of the, because I don't think we are much better now than in the 40's. Better for Black people, sure, better for Gays, sure, better for women, sure. But we're harming a lot more people abroad than in the 40's, and have been doing so ever since hte Cold War. We're different, but not a lot better.

Besides which, in order to truly go back to the 40's we would have to undergo a massive culture change, and while Trump can do a lot of damage in office one thing he cannot do is change the attitudes of the people that radically. Indeed, I personally doubt he will win on that account. One more reason I find the doomsaying annoying.

George Bush II lied. As in, he knew the truth and elected to tell something else. Trump disregards the concept of truth.

Really now? Care to give some concrete example of him bullshitting, as it were? Genuine request.

[Patroklos]

Look, if you hate Clinton, fine. I don't like her myself, and I don't trust her. If you want to try to primary her in four years, best of luck to you. But for now, when the stakes are this high, step up and do your duty to ensure that Trump does not win the election.

And if you refuse to do that, then please do not try to use false arguments (like "both sides are the same" or "Trump is just a typical politician") to justify your choice. And please do not pretend that you are acting on behalf of Bernie Sanders or his supporters (you know, those of us who actually support his decision).

Who is supposed to be sounding like fascist again?

[Elfdart]

Yeah, it appears that Hillary's camp followers are adopting Dubya's line that you're either with them or you're for the Turrists/Commies/Donald Hitler Trump/Putin. There's a whole lotta drama queening going on and were it done a little more artfully, it would work as brilliant satire. But since this line of agitprop is being done so badly...

Trump is a racist, quasi-fascist, cowardly, bullying, draft-dodging, belligerent asshole who lies constantly, incites hatred and violence against those who displease him, all the while salivating at the prospect of looting the treasury and wrecking the economy with his harebrained financial policies? Yep, sure is. But most if not all of the above applied to Von Reagan, Dubya and Sarah Palin (though not the draft-dodging part). I remember quite a bit of anger and shock when Bush 43 and Bitburg Ronnie won, and much relief when that nitwit from Alaska lost. Still, the only major difference I can see is that Trump is cruder and more obnoxious.

Hillary's lackeys need to get their story straight. Either the hardcore Sanders and Stein supporters are a tiny number of holdouts, not worthy of being listened to, let alone given a say in a coalition against Trump and the GOP, OR they are a vast legion of fanatics so numerous that they just might tip the election in Trump's favor. If it's the former, then shitting on them is a waste of time and effort best reserved for use against Trump. If the latter, then Hillary deserves to lose anyway because there can't possibly be a more retarded political strategy than "Fuck off, you Dirty Fucking Hippies! Now vote for me or else!"

I suspect all the bullshit about "Bernie Bros" and the recent slander aimed at Jill Stein are just the Dems' way of setting up an alibi should Hillary lose. Forty-eight years after Humphrey narrowly lost to Nixon, veal pen Democrats are still pissing their pants and crying about how those Dirty Fucking Hippies lost the election. Don't get me started on the scapegoating of Nader.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon, I'm just going to point out that right now I'm trying to argue with two other people, and its very hard to do so let alone have a third who keeps trying to add yet more commentary. You might have noticed that most of my posts in response to TRR and Aly keep coming after one of the other two has responded to me. I don't want to say it, but right now I feel dogpiled on, and since you aren't adding as much to the conversation as they are, you are essentially the straw that would be breaking my back. Okay? I want you to know that because right now it seems like I cannot argue with all three of you at once, and you are the one I am most inclined to concede points to to begin with.

I have no intention of rushing you into being dogpiled beyond your comfort zone.

I suppose the only serious point of contention that I've raised which you haven't answered, and which you are welcome to address at leisure, can be summarized like this:

"The fact that a candidate intends to do Evil Thing X, but probably can't because Y will get in the way, doesn't earn the candidate any more points. They are still just as bad, and potentially just as dangerous, as someone who would succeed in doing X because Y can no longer stop them. Because it is quite possible they will find a way to bypass the resistance presented by Y. Or that Y will not be as effective at slowing them down as we believe, or that they'll push ahead regardless of Y and provoke a massive crisis.

So we should not judge Trump (or any other candidate) by what we think he will be permitted to get away with. We should judge him by what he and his followers would do if nobody stopped him.

And if Trump he appears exceptionally bad on that scale, then keeping him away from the levers of power is very important."

...

Time permitting, I would also appreciate it if you could find time to restate your argument that it's fallacious to think third parties can split a candidate's vote and cause an opposition candidate to win despite being unpopular. I still can't figure out how that conclusion follows from your premises.

---

Yeah, it appears that Hillary's camp followers are adopting Dubya's line that you're either with them or you're for the Turrists/Commies/Donald Hitler Trump/Putin. There's a whole lotta drama queening going on and were it done a little more artfully, it would work as brilliant satire. But since this line of agitprop is being done so badly...

Uh, no, this is actually genuine. Millions of people are seriously concerned that Trump may provoke major constitutional crises, fatally compromise important constitutional rights, and cause massive damage to the US's standing overseas. And they can present considerable evidence for all these claims, because basically... Trump has specifically announced that he will do those things, if you pay any attention to what he says and what the consequences would be if he did anything remotely resembling what he said. Or, for that matter, even took office at all, because other people in other countries will react to him winning the election.

This is not a propaganda tactic. People actually think Trump winning the election would be uniquely disastrous. And if you believe that, which a lot of people every bit as smart as you do... Then it logically follows that there is absolutely no reason to increase the risk of that happening. Or to risk allowing it to happen by inaction.

Trump is a racist, quasi-fascist, cowardly, bullying, draft-dodging, belligerent asshole who lies constantly, incites hatred and violence against those who displease him, all the while salivating at the prospect of looting the treasury and wrecking the economy with his harebrained financial policies? Yep, sure is. But most if not all of the above applied to Von Reagan, Dubya and Sarah Palin (though not the draft-dodging part). I remember quite a bit of anger and shock when Bush 43 and Bitburg Ronnie won, and much relief when that nitwit from Alaska lost. Still, the only major difference I can see is that Trump is cruder and more obnoxious.

Neither Reagan nor Bush, Jr. were anywhere near as fascist, and Trump manages to be even more ignorant of public affairs and even more willing to rely on complete lunatics as his trusted advisors.

If you don't perceive the difference, then you're not paying attention.

Hillary's lackeys need to get their story straight. Either the hardcore Sanders and Stein supporters are a tiny number of holdouts, not worthy of being listened to, let alone given a say in a coalition against Trump and the GOP, OR they are a vast legion of fanatics so numerous that they just might tip the election in Trump's favor. If it's the former, then shitting on them is a waste of time and effort best reserved for use against Trump. If the latter, then Hillary deserves to lose anyway because there can't possibly be a more retarded political strategy than "Fuck off, you Dirty Fucking Hippies! Now vote for me or else!"

Clinton herself, and her campaign, don't seem to be pushing the "the far left is a threat" line.

I would speculate that the problem might be that YOU, personally, are running into those arguments a lot. Because YOU, personally, are the one going around pretending there's no difference between, say, Trump and Reagan. There is; Trump is significantly worse in almost every way that matters. As a result, your standardized cookie-cutter "a pox on both their houses, aren't I sophisticated for rejecting the two-party binary" stance causes them to become alarmed, and to argue with YOU, personally.

Because they're afraid of what happens if Trump wins. And it is at least conceivable that he could win, and somewhat more likely if the left wing of the party stays home on Election Day. Which they would only do because they don't care if Trump wins, due to the sheer arrogance and foolishness of this sophisticated rejection of the two-party binary.

[maraxus2]

Because they're afraid of what happens if Trump wins. And it is at least conceivable that he could win, and somewhat more likely if the left wing of the party stays home on Election Day. Which they would only do because they don't care if Trump wins, due to the sheer arrogance and foolishness of this sophisticated rejection of the two-party binary.

Hear hear.

I don't understand why "X is truly horrible, therefore you should vote Y" is necessarily a less valid justification for voting than "I truly believe Y will be good for the Country." Votes don't any more because they have conviction behind them. And we know almost exactly what's going to happen if the Republican legislature gets in the driving seat for federal legislation. North Carolina shows us precisely what we should expect to see if Trump wins the White House. He's certainly not going to be pushing policy; the lunatics in the Freedom Caucus will. And look at all the nasty shit the NC GOP has been up to in the last four years.

If she did nothing else, Hillary Clinton would protect voting rights and keep Obamacare alive. More importantly, she'd appoint justices who would do the same. Those two policies protect, respectively, the voting rights of millions of people and the literal health and well being of millions more. If Trump did nothing else, both of those things would die, possibly loudly and publicly, more likely quietly and little notice.

If you consider yourself a progressive, it seems to me like those two things should be of near-paramount importance. How you could be undecided in this election is beyond me.

[Grumman]

I don't understand why "X is truly horrible, therefore you should vote Y" is necessarily a less valid justification for voting than "I truly believe Y will be good for the Country."

Because it's a false dilemma that produces inferior results. Whoever is elected President should be a good candidate, not merely less shit than Trump. There are literally tens of millions of people eligible for the job who never supported the illegal War in Iraq, who never supported the Patriot Act, who didn't participate in the use of airstrikes to assassinate people in countries we are not at war with based on inadequate intelligence, who didn't try to do an end-run around the Freedom of Information Act in a manner that was declared "extremely careless" by the FBI. Nobody on the left should be looking at a candidate who voted her support of the worst policies of the Bush Administration and arguing that that's good enough.

If Zombie Adolf Hitler rose from his unmarked grave, ate Hillary Clinton's brain, and ran for President, it would not be reasonable to say "Zombie Adolf Hitler is truly horrible, therefore you should vote for his opponent, Donald Trump."

[Simon_Jester]

I don't understand why "X is truly horrible, therefore you should vote Y" is necessarily a less valid justification for voting than "I truly believe Y will be good for the Country."

Because it's a false dilemma that produces inferior results.

The dilemma is not false- both outcomes are real and possible, and unfortunately there is no REAL third option (as opposed to random fantasies)

Whoever is elected President should be a good candidate, not merely less shit than Trump. There are literally tens of millions of people eligible for the job who never supported the illegal War in Iraq, who never supported the Patriot Act, who didn't participate in the use of airstrikes to assassinate people in countries we are not at war with based on inadequate intelligence, who didn't try to do an end-run around the Freedom of Information Act in a manner that was declared "extremely careless" by the FBI.

And if we all individually vote for whichever of those tens of millions of people we like best, we can have a million presidential candidates with a hundred or so votes apiece... while the united mass of voters behind a candidate we all find totally, totally loathsome puts that man into office.

Don't be stupid.

If you're not satisfied with the outcome, fine, but live in the world we actually occupy. If you really want highly progressive candidates running for office, convince enough people to make it possible for those candidates to win. At the moment, there are not enough people who've been convinced, and the stakes are too high for you to pretend that the other 80% of America doesn't exist.

Otherwise, at least be adult enough to think through the predictable consequences of your actions, and stop wishing for what you cannot have in this election cycle.

If Zombie Adolf Hitler rose from his unmarked grave, ate Hillary Clinton's brain, and ran for President, it would not be reasonable to say "Zombie Adolf Hitler is truly horrible, therefore you should vote for his opponent, Donald Trump."

Actually... yes, it would. Not being ruled by Zombie Hitler is an important and desirable goal. Refusing to vote in the election altogether is a stupid and childish way to 'protest' the fact that you don't like the candidates.

[maraxus2]

Because it's a false dilemma that produces inferior results. Whoever is elected President should be a good candidate, not merely less shit than Trump. There are literally tens of millions of people eligible for the job who never supported the illegal War in Iraq, who never supported the Patriot Act, who didn't participate in the use of airstrikes to assassinate people in countries we are not at war with based on inadequate intelligence, who didn't try to do an end-run around the Freedom of Information Act in a manner that was declared "extremely careless" by the FBI. Nobody on the left should be looking at a candidate who voted her support of the worst policies of the Bush Administration and arguing that that's good enough.

If Zombie Adolf Hitler rose from his unmarked grave, ate Hillary Clinton's brain, and ran for President, it would not be reasonable to say "Zombie Adolf Hitler is truly horrible, therefore you should vote for his opponent, Donald Trump."

It's a good thing that Zombie Adolf Hitler isn't on the ballot, then. Nor are any one of the tens of millions of people who never supported the illegal war in Iraq on the ballot. Nor any of the rest of that stuff. Hillary-Trump is the choice we've got, and the election will make one of these two people President.

Voting isn't a moral choice or demonstration of virtue; it's designed to produce an outcome. There is very real danger that voting rights could be rolled back to effectively pre-Voting Rights Act levels in much of the country. This is already happening in the rural South. The Feds are literally the only ones fighting this in the vast majority of these states. A Trump presidency will not only abandon that fight, it would likely expand on those voter suppression efforts.

If you disagree with this outcome, and you absolutely should if you consider yourself even vaguely left, then you should vote for Clinton.

I assume you have a valid reason why warrantless wiretapping and the Iraq War outweighs the voting rights of millions of Black and Brown people. What is it?

[Flagg]

Yeah, it appears that Hillary's camp followers are adopting Dubya's line that you're either with them or you're for the Turrists/Commies/Donald Hitler Trump/Putin. There's a whole lotta drama queening going on and were it done a little more artfully, it would work as brilliant satire. But since this line of agitprop is being done so badly...

Trump is a racist, quasi-fascist, cowardly, bullying, draft-dodging, belligerent asshole who lies constantly, incites hatred and violence against those who displease him, all the while salivating at the prospect of looting the treasury and wrecking the economy with his harebrained financial policies? Yep, sure is. But most if not all of the above applied to Von Reagan, Dubya and Sarah Palin (though not the draft-dodging part). I remember quite a bit of anger and shock when Bush 43 and Bitburg Ronnie won, and much relief when that nitwit from Alaska lost. Still, the only major difference I can see is that Trump is cruder and more obnoxious.

Hillary's lackeys need to get their story straight. Either the hardcore Sanders and Stein supporters are a tiny number of holdouts, not worthy of being listened to, let alone given a say in a coalition against Trump and the GOP, OR they are a vast legion of fanatics so numerous that they just might tip the election in Trump's favor. If it's the former, then shitting on them is a waste of time and effort best reserved for use against Trump. If the latter, then Hillary deserves to lose anyway because there can't possibly be a more retarded political strategy than "Fuck off, you Dirty Fucking Hippies! Now vote for me or else!"

I suspect all the bullshit about "Bernie Bros" and the recent slander aimed at Jill Stein are just the Dems' way of setting up an alibi should Hillary lose. Forty-eight years after Humphrey narrowly lost to Nixon, veal pen Democrats are still pissing their pants and crying about how those Dirty Fucking Hippies lost the election. Don't get me started on the scapegoating of Nader.

Oh fuck Nader. I don't hold much against the guy in the fog of "they're both the same Rage Against The Machine douchebagism" of the rigged 2000 election, but when he ran again in 2004 any lingering respect I had for the walking bone bag for making seat belts mandatory went out the fucking window. I'm cool with third party candidates generally, but aside from corporate whorism, yes there is a difference. If you can look me in the face and tell me Al Gore would have invaded Iraq and pass a mental health evaluation I will suck your dick/pussy/castration scar.

[Simon_Jester]

A distinct point.

There is a certain irony in people saying it makes no difference whether Bush or Gore won the 2000 election, and then condemning Hillary Clinton for voting for the Iraq War.

[Flagg]

I don't understand why "X is truly horrible, therefore you should vote Y" is necessarily a less valid justification for voting than "I truly believe Y will be good for the Country."

Because it's a false dilemma that produces inferior results. Whoever is elected President should be a good candidate, not merely less shit than Trump. There are literally tens of millions of people eligible for the job who never supported the illegal War in Iraq, who never supported the Patriot Act, who didn't participate in the use of airstrikes to assassinate people in countries we are not at war with based on inadequate intelligence, who didn't try to do an end-run around the Freedom of Information Act in a manner that was declared "extremely careless" by the FBI. Nobody on the left should be looking at a candidate who voted her support of the worst policies of the Bush Administration and arguing that that's good enough.

If Zombie Adolf Hitler rose from his unmarked grave, ate Hillary Clinton's brain, and ran for President, it would not be reasonable to say "Zombie Adolf Hitler is truly horrible, therefore you should vote for his opponent, Donald Trump."

This is the stupidest post you (easily one of the stupidest members of the board, and this is coming from someone who recognizes that he too isn't a luminary of intelligence in comparison to most active members) may have ever made. There are numerous choices for POTUS on your ballot differing by state, and (unless Jill Stien gets a disease she decided not to get vaccinated for and dies) only 4 are likely to be on all of them, those being Trump, Clinton, Johnson, and Stien. 50% of those will only get into the WH on a tour or if they break in. So you have 4 choices between 2 candidates that can actually, you know, win. You can vote for noted douchebag Donald Trump, politician to the marrow Hillary Clinton, one of those other two, or no one (I do this by drawing a doodle of a dick and hairy scrotum ejaculating because I have the sense of humor of a 17 year old).

That is all, you dumbass.

[Dominus Atheos]

See, Clinton is "just another politician:" conservative in that she doesn't really care if America changes, so connected with the Washington elite that it's not entirely clear if she's had an honest conversation with a normal human being in a quarter century, vaguely corrupt in ways that are difficult to pin down despite the best efforts of her opposition, and alarmingly willing to do whatever grants her more power. About the only thing she brings to the table is the promise that a woman with brains and determination can become president of the United States- which is a valuable message to send to ourselves and posterity, I'll say that much.

Her policy agenda is and always has been fairly liberal as well. She might not bring about any sort of revolutionary change to our political system, but she will advance a solid policy agenda that will make people's lives better.

Some people's, yes. But Trump may make the lives of straight white males better too. Is it too much to ask for a candidate that will make everyone's lives better? One of my biggest problems with her is how little I see most people benefiting from a Hillary Clinton presidency.

[Flagg]

See, Clinton is "just another politician:" conservative in that she doesn't really care if America changes, so connected with the Washington elite that it's not entirely clear if she's had an honest conversation with a normal human being in a quarter century, vaguely corrupt in ways that are difficult to pin down despite the best efforts of her opposition, and alarmingly willing to do whatever grants her more power. About the only thing she brings to the table is the promise that a woman with brains and determination can become president of the United States- which is a valuable message to send to ourselves and posterity, I'll say that much.

Her policy agenda is and always has been fairly liberal as well. She might not bring about any sort of revolutionary change to our political system, but she will advance a solid policy agenda that will make people's lives better.

Some people's, yes. But Trump may make the lives of straight white males better too. Is it too much to ask for a candidate that will make everyone's lives better? One of my biggest problems with her is how little I see most people benefiting from a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Assuming the ACA is simply kept intact (rather than the assumption, which given her background isn't "out there", that it will be expanded), that alone benefits "most people" since Donnie Douchebag wants to undo it.

[Dominus Atheos]

Also, I am under no obligation to participate in making a choice between being shot and being lightly kicked in the shins. Fuck both those choices. If the end result of me refusing to participate in the choice is that the country ends up shot, I won't feel any responsibility for that. There are many other people before me who made many other bad choices that resulted in the present bad choice, any result is their responsibility.

[Dominus Atheos]

Her policy agenda is and always has been fairly liberal as well. She might not bring about any sort of revolutionary change to our political system, but she will advance a solid policy agenda that will make people's lives better.

Some people's, yes. But Trump may make the lives of straight white males better too. Is it too much to ask for a candidate that will make everyone's lives better? One of my biggest problems with her is how little I see most people benefiting from a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Assuming the ACA is simply kept intact (rather than the assumption, which given her background isn't "out there", that it will be expanded), that alone benefits "most people" since Donnie Douchebag wants to undo it.

Once again you have a good argument against Donald Trump. I'd like to hear some arguments for Hillary about how she's going to help most Americans.

[maraxus2]

Also, I am under no obligation to participate in making a choice between being shot and being lightly kicked in the shins. Fuck both those choices. If the end result of me refusing to participate in the choice is that the country ends up shot, I won't feel any responsibility for that. There are many other people before me who made many other bad choices that resulted in the present bad choice, any result is their responsibility.

Of course you're under no obligation. It just seems like a morally callous choice. You can stay home and not vote, or vote for a third party, and it probably won't matter. And it really won't matter if you live outside of twelve states. Certainly my vote won't matter.

But if the election is close and Trump does win, that sense of righteousness seems like a very poor trade for lots and lots of suffering. We know what will happen if Trump gets into the White House because we've seen it all across the Country. Virtually every state that experienced Republican takeovers between 2010 to now shows us what to expect. We know they're going to pass extensive abortion restrictions. We know they're going to gut the ACA and much of the entitlement system. We know they're going to be truly abysmal on climate change. And even if the Dems do manage to retake Congress in a Trump presidency, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell can do a hell of a lot of irreversible damage to this country.

Again, I don't think it matters much, and I really don't think that mentality bears responsibility for Trump. But I don't see how that position gives someone moral standing if Trump does win and the GOP runs the show. Refusing to participate in a shitty choice looks a lot less principled and a lot more like fiddling while Rome burns.

[Flagg]

Also, I am under no obligation to participate in making a choice between being shot and being lightly kicked in the shins. Fuck both those choices. If the end result of me refusing to participate in the choice is that the country ends up shot, I won't feel any responsibility for that. There are many other people before me who made many other bad choices that resulted in the present bad choice, any result is their responsibility.

Sounds like someone pleading for leniency after a guilty verdict.

[Flagg]

Some people's, yes. But Trump may make the lives of straight white males better too. Is it too much to ask for a candidate that will make everyone's lives better? One of my biggest problems with her is how little I see most people benefiting from a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Assuming the ACA is simply kept intact (rather than the assumption, which given her background isn't "out there", that it will be expanded), that alone benefits "most people" since Donnie Douchebag wants to undo it.

Once again you have a good argument against Donald Trump. I'd like to hear some arguments for Hillary about how she's going to help most Americans.

Just by keeping the ACA going, dumbass. Also she'll likely expand it.

But really you are asking for the benefits of not jumping off a 500' cliff with jagged rocks and eye eating rats at the bottom. "Well what has not dying and having my eyes eaten by rats ever done for me?"

[Flagg]

Also, I am under no obligation to participate in making a choice between being shot and being lightly kicked in the shins. Fuck both those choices. If the end result of me refusing to participate in the choice is that the country ends up shot, I won't feel any responsibility for that. There are many other people before me who made many other bad choices that resulted in the present bad choice, any result is their responsibility.

Of course you're under no obligation. It just seems like a morally callous choice. You can stay home and not vote, or vote for a third party, and it probably won't matter. And it really won't matter if you live outside of twelve states. Certainly my vote won't matter.

But if the election is close and Trump does win, that sense of righteousness seems like a very poor trade for lots and lots of suffering. We know what will happen if Trump gets into the White House because we've seen it all across the Country. Virtually every state that experienced Republican takeovers between 2010 to now shows us what to expect. We know they're going to pass extensive abortion restrictions. We know they're going to gut the ACA and much of the entitlement system. We know they're going to be truly abysmal on climate change. And even if the Dems do manage to retake Congress in a Trump presidency, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell can do a hell of a lot of irreversible damage to this country.

Again, I don't think it matters much, and I really don't think that mentality bears responsibility for Trump. But I don't see how that position gives someone moral standing if Trump does win and the GOP runs the show. Refusing to participate in a shitty choice looks a lot less principled and a lot more like fiddling while Rome burns.

Sorry, but to me it sounds like the mewling of spoiled brats.

[Dominus Atheos]

Also, I am under no obligation to participate in making a choice between being shot and being lightly kicked in the shins. Fuck both those choices. If the end result of me refusing to participate in the choice is that the country ends up shot, I won't feel any responsibility for that. There are many other people before me who made many other bad choices that resulted in the present bad choice, any result is their responsibility.

Of course you're under no obligation. It just seems like a morally callous choice. You can stay home and not vote, or vote for a third party, and it probably won't matter. And it really won't matter if you live outside of twelve states. Certainly my vote won't matter.

But if the election is close and Trump does win, that sense of righteousness seems like a very poor trade for lots and lots of suffering. We know what will happen if Trump gets into the White House because we've seen it all across the Country. Virtually every state that experienced Republican takeovers between 2010 to now shows us what to expect. We know they're going to pass extensive abortion restrictions. We know they're going to gut the ACA and much of the entitlement system. We know they're going to be truly abysmal on climate change. And even if the Dems do manage to retake Congress in a Trump presidency, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell can do a hell of a lot of irreversible damage to this country.

Again, I don't think it matters much, and I really don't think that mentality bears responsibility for Trump. But I don't see how that position gives someone moral standing if Trump does win and the GOP runs the show. Refusing to participate in a shitty choice looks a lot less principled and a lot more like fiddling while Rome burns.

I'll cop to "fiddling while rome burns" but non-hillary supporters don't bear any responsibility for rome being on fire.

[Dominus Atheos]

Assuming the ACA is simply kept intact (rather than the assumption, which given her background isn't "out there", that it will be expanded), that alone benefits "most people" since Donnie Douchebag wants to undo it.

Once again you have a good argument against Donald Trump. I'd like to hear some arguments for Hillary about how she's going to help most Americans.

Just by keeping the ACA going, dumbass. Also she'll likely expand it.

But really you are asking for the benefits of not jumping off a 500' cliff with jagged rocks and eye eating rats at the bottom. "Well what has not dying and having my eyes eaten by rats ever done for me?"

So just to be clear, you: A. Spent the last year shitting all over Hillary's primary opponent as a "traitor", "carpetbagger", and "loony"; and B. after Hillary won the nomination, demand that I support her since she's the only choice against Donald Trump? Is that about right?

Fuck you. If I don't vote and donald trump wins, I'll be able to sleep fine knowing that you and people like you are much much more responsible for that outcome than I am.

[maraxus2]

I'll cop to "fiddling while rome burns" but non-hillary supporters don't bear any responsibility for rome being on fire.

I'm glad we can now establish that you don't give two shits if Rome is on fire. This is a healthy attitude to have in a democracy.

[Flagg]

Once again you have a good argument against Donald Trump. I'd like to hear some arguments for Hillary about how she's going to help most Americans.

Just by keeping the ACA going, dumbass. Also she'll likely expand it.

But really you are asking for the benefits of not jumping off a 500' cliff with jagged rocks and eye eating rats at the bottom. "Well what has not dying and having my eyes eaten by rats ever done for me?"

So just to be clear, you: A. Spent the last year shitting all over Hillary's primary opponent as a "traitor", "carpetbagger", and "loony"; and B. after Hillary won the nomination, demand that I support her since she's the only choice against Donald Trump? Is that about right?

Fuck you. If I don't vote and donald trump wins, I'll be able to sleep fine knowing that you and people like you are much much more responsible for that outcome than I am.

I don't believe I ever called him a "carpetbagger" or a "loony". And I don't recall "traitor", either, frankly. I demand you provide evidence of this or an apology.

What I called him quite frequently is a political whore, because he pretended to be a democrat for money and exposure and that's about it. And if said whore had won the nomination I wouldn't "demand" you vote for him any more than I've "demanded" you vote for Clinton. I'd just ridicule you and call you a dimwitted twat for not doing so.

[Flagg]

Well, I did my own search and aside from Reagan who I frequently called a traitor (and will since he was) I said that Joe Lieberman "turned traitor" once.

So I never called Bernie Sanders "loony".
I never called Bernie Sanders a "carpetbagger" (which doesn't even make sense).
I sure as fuck never called him a "traitor".

So will you be making that apology (preferably on your knees) or will I be getting the mods involved you slandering piece of shit?

[The Romulan Republic]

Look, if you hate Clinton, fine. I don't like her myself, and I don't trust her. If you want to try to primary her in four years, best of luck to you. But for now, when the stakes are this high, step up and do your duty to ensure that Trump does not win the election.

And if you refuse to do that, then please do not try to use false arguments (like "both sides are the same" or "Trump is just a typical politician") to justify your choice. And please do not pretend that you are acting on behalf of Bernie Sanders or his supporters (you know, those of us who actually support his decision).

Who is supposed to be sounding like fascist again?

Having an opinion on who others should vote for is not fascist. I'm very clearly not saying that people should be forced to vote my way, but if I need to clarify that for you, I'm happy to do so. The right to vote as you choose is as close to sacred as anything in our political process.

However, because of the actions and positions of Trump, and those he associates with, I feel that people should vote in the manner that will most effectively prevent him from becoming President for the sake of this country, and the world. I have a right to that opinion too, and few things piss me off like hypocrites who say "Free speech! How dare you criticize my opinion", which is, in essence, what you are doing.

You know, this isn't the first time you've suggested that I am a fascist, as I recall. I suggest that you find a new ad hominem/straw man to play.