The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Flagg]

Oh yeah, Clinton can handle debates just fine. Even as a Sanders supporter, I always felt that she was the stronger campaigner in the debate format.

Yeah, and she's a hell of a panderer, too. Watch any speech given by her in a primary black church and how she starts sounding like an African American preacher without managing to offend, it's masterful. Obama does the same thing. It's not examples of racism, but of perfectly reading a crowd and talking to them in the correct tone and with the correct mannerisms. Meanwhile, Donnie Douchebag goes into a room like a shit-handed ape and does his best impression of a steamroller crossed with a wrecking-ball (add a shark and you've got another unwatchable SyFy cellu-bortion) expecting to bend the crowd to his will like (Hayden Christiansen) Darth Vader, which only works when the idiots listening paid $25000 for a "Donald Trump's secret get rich in real estate seminar" (first secret: don't pay 25 grand to get real estate tips from a dozen time bankrupt fake real estate millionaire) with an open bar.

[Alferd Packer]

Do you honestly believe there are there are any such people left who seeing Trump insult Clinton on national TV will be the thing that finally convenience them that THIS is the thing that gives Clinton a chance and not vote for Trump?

To name one, suburban women(who, as a group, normally vote Republican). The moment Trump loses his temper and calls Hillary or one or the female moderators a bad name, he will have lost that group to Hillary and she will have the election wrapped up.

Trump has one viable path to victory: carry every red state, win Florida, then break the Rust Belt open and win Ohio, PA, Michigan, and Wisconsin. To win the Rust Belt, he has to utterly dominate the white vote. Winning angry white men is easy with his current rhetoric, but he needs to win white women of all stripes. And the surest way to lose women as voting group is to act like a misogynist asshole in front of 60-80 million viewers on live TV.

Of course, as has been pointed out, Clinton is a skilled debater and is probably already running daily mock debates where her staff routinely hurls worse insults at her than Trump would ever dare say. She is going to be more prepared, knowledgeable, and comfortable with the debate format. She will absolutely crush him in foreign policy. Trump knows he currently doesn't have a chance in the debates, and maybe he doesn't want to put in the work needed to bring himself up to speed.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Do you honestly believe there are there are any such people left who seeing Trump insult Clinton on national TV will be the thing that finally convenience them that THIS is the thing that gives Clinton a chance and not vote for Trump?

To name one, suburban women(who, as a group, normally vote Republican). The moment Trump loses his temper and calls Hillary or one or the female moderators a bad name, he will have lost that group to Hillary and she will have the election wrapped up.

Trump has one viable path to victory: carry every red state, win Florida, then break the Rust Belt open and win Ohio, PA, Michigan, and Wisconsin. To win the Rust Belt, he has to utterly dominate the white vote. Winning angry white men is easy with his current rhetoric, but he needs to win white women of all stripes. And the surest way to lose women as voting group is to act like a misogynist asshole in front of 60-80 million viewers on live TV.

Of course, as has been pointed out, Clinton is a skilled debater and is probably already running daily mock debates where her staff routinely hurls worse insults at her than Trump would ever dare say. She is going to be more prepared, knowledgeable, and comfortable with the debate format. She will absolutely crush him in foreign policy. Trump knows he currently doesn't have a chance in the debates, and maybe he doesn't want to put in the work needed to bring himself up to speed.

I am not actually sure he can help himself. I mean, it is good and all to treat him like he is rational, but he really isn't. He looks a great deal like a clinical narcissist (not a forensic psychiatrist, I only minored in psych, so grain of salt here).

General Criteria for a personality disorder, straight from the DSM-V

A. An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the
expectations of the individual’s culture. This pattern is manifested in two (or more) of
the following areas:

1. Cognition (i.e., ways of perceiving and interpreting self, other people, and events).
2. Affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity, lability, and appropriateness of emotional re­
sponse).
3. Interpersonal functioning.
4. Impulse control.

B. The enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and
social situations.
C. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, oc­
cupational, or other important areas of functioning.
D. The pattern is stable and cf long duration, and Its onset can be traced back at least to
adolescence or early adulthood.
E. The enduring pattern is not better explained as a manifestation or consequence of an­
other mental disorder.
F. The enduring pattern is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g.,
a drug of abuse, a medication) or another medical condition (e.g., head trauma).

He meets A-1, A-2, A-4, though I cannot be sure on A-3 because I dont know him in private life and thus dont know how he treats people in his inner circle. The way he handles crowds and the like indicates to me that he might be abusive privately and accusations of rape and sexual harassment indicate he meets A-3. But I am less sure.

B. He meets B if his history is any indication.

C. Definitely impaired

D. Unknown on duration, but it seems probable given past history.

E. He does not seem to be delusional per se, and does not exhibit the highs and lows seen in bipolar disorder

F. No evidence of head trauma and he is a teetotaller.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Checks are mine)

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack
of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated
by five (or more) of the following:
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents,
expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).--CHECK
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal
love.--Holy Fuching Shitballs CHECK
3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or
should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).--Not Sure
4. Requires excessive admiration.--CHECK
5. Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable
treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).--CHECK
6. Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own
ends).--Jesus Christ CHECK
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.--CHECK
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.--CHECK
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.--CHECK

The only one where he is not basically textbook is 3, and only because I cannot tell if he believes he should only associate with Special People, or if that just tends to happen given his socioeconomic status. I will hazard to say yes, if you consider the racism as the locus around which "special" is defined.

If I am right (given all possible caveats here, this is armchair, I am not a clinician, I study insect behavior) what does this mean for the debates?

Well, at first he is going to drum beat and be pissed off that the debates wont be scheduled according to his particular whims (and notice his complaint is about a conflict with football, the spotlight is insufficient). But he will go anyway, because he needs the spotlight. It does not matter what he stands to gain or lose from participation, he is not operating on that kind of rational level. He has grandiose delusions about his capabilities and will act accordingly, even though Hillary Clinton is going to eat him alive on all matters of substance. He is going to do what he did in the GOP debates, which is to interrupt and mock her. That sort of behavior works fine when you are appealing to authoritarians (read: the GOP base), but it is extremely maladaptive in the general election. He cannot help himself. This is why he has not pivoted to the center. He is incapable of it.

[Terralthra]

Initial post-DNC polling indicates a substantial bounce for Sec. Clinton, pushing her anywhere from 3 to 9 percentage points above Mr. Trump nationwide.

[The Romulan Republic]

To anyone who is hesitating about who they will vote for in this election, who is considering sitting it out or voting third party or doing a write-in, who thinks fear of Trump is overblown, read this article.

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016 ... otherhood/

An official adviser to the Trump campaign has escalated the attacks on Khizr Khan, the gold star father who was critical of Trump at the Democratic convention, baselessly accusing him of being a “Muslim Brotherhood agent.”
The adviser, Al Baldasaro, tweeted a link to an article from Shoebat.com, a fringe anti-Islam conspiracy website. The article also suggests (without any evidence) that Humayun Khan, who was awarded a Purple Heart and Bronze, was a jihadist who joined the military to kill Americans.




The piece, written by Theodore and Walid Shoebat, is less of an article and more of a fever dream of conspiracies strung together. It is all based on a 1983 law review article on Islamic Law published in the Houston Journal Of International Law. From there, the Shoebats are off to the races, accusing Khan of being a “a Muslim plant working with the Hillary Clinton campaign” and suggesting his son was a double agent “working for the US and Al-Qaeda… killed before his Islamist mission was accomplished.”
The piece also revives discredited attacks linking Huma Abedin, a top adviser to Hillary Clinton, to the Muslim Brotherhood.
In recent days, Theodore Shoebat has also called on the government to execute gay people for sodomy and Hillary Clinton for witchcraft. He also said women who have abortions should be lined up and shot by firing squad.
He is now a trusted source of information by members of the Trump campaign.
The article was also promoted by Roger Stone, one of Trump’s oldest and most influential advisers. Stone left the campaign in 2015 but is still in regular contact with Trump, providing political advice.


In July, Baldasaro called on Hillary Clinton to be “put in the firing line and shot treason.” Baldasaro refused to apologize.
In a statement to the Washington Post, the Trump campaign said they “do not agree” with Baldasaro but were “incredibly grateful for his support.” They did not sever ties with him. The Boston Globe reports Baldasaro is “not some marginal figure in Trump’s world” but “advises the candidate on veterans issues and he’s appeared with Trump at numerous events.”
Screen Shot 2016-08-01 at 11.47.31 AM
Trump appeared with Baldasaro at an event in Trump Tower in May.
The Trump campaign and Baldasaro did not immediately return requests for comment.

Now, having read this, tell me:

Can you still justify not doing everything in your power to help make sure Trump loses this election? Can you still sit on the sidelines and call it principle while a man who's closest advisors include an advocate of politically motivated murder who cites advocates of genocide runs for President?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm just fucking sick of Greens, and Libertarians, and Bernie or Bust, and every smug little ass hat who trots out the trite one-liner about how both sides are the same, says how you're a sheep if you vote for Clinton, how Bernie is a sell-out or a traitor or a coward or bought for endorsing her (and yes, I've seen pretty much all of that, or comparable slurs, on Bernie's Facebook page), how fucking principled they are for not voting for Clinton because they either haven't gotten with the fucking times, or have such a warped view of reality that they just don't care.

This is not a business as usual election, and it is not a "lesser of two evils" or "both sides are the same" election.

This is a struggle for America's soul, and the freedom and lives of its people, and others around the world who would be threatened by a Trump presidency. This is a crisis of a magnitude and severity that we haven't faced since the Great Depression and the Second World War. I'm sure that some will scream hyperbole, but I don't care. I believe every word I'm saying.

If you can sit it out, split the vote, and then pat yourself on the back for your supposed principles, then fuck you.

If you give a damn about the future of this world, then welcome aboard.

[Formless]

Or you could calm your ass down and think for a second about how two party politics is corrupting your mind and filling it with a whole new level of smug. America's soul? Are you for fucking real? These two politicians are really no different from the last twenty years of presidential candidates. Do you think Nader lost Al Gore the election? Serious question.

Food for thought:

The Bernie Sanders revolution is just getting started

The Bernie for President campaign is over, but the political revolution that he launched against corporate rule is just beginning.

Sanders and close advisors are now strategizing and developing a new organizational structure to keep growing the grassroots rebellion, but a multitude of Bernie supporters are not waiting on a smoke signal from headquarters. Their percolate-up creativity has already burst into new political organizing projects that are advancing this energized populist movement.

One such effort got underway just three days after the final Democratic primary. Some 3,000 Berniecrats from across America gathered in Chicago for “The People’s Summit.” Rather than being morose or cynical about Sanders not winning the nomination, attendees were exuberant about the movement that he galvanized. This extraordinary event was a combination of tent revival and a big workshop for strategizing, organizing and mobilizing. The two-day summit was convened by National Nurses United and co-sponsored by more than 50 diverse and effective democracy-building groups.

This meeting had a minimum of blah-blah and a maximum of planning on how to put experienced, locally based organizers and volunteers directly into growing the movement — starting now. These ever-larger and broader local coalitions will: (1) be rooted in principled, anti-corporate politics; (2) launch direct grassroots initiatives and actions on a range of populist issues; (3) recruit, train and elect thousands of movement candidates to school boards, city councils, state legislatures and other offices; (4) deepen the relationships and sense of shared purpose in this revolutionary democratic movement; and (5)make it fun, putting the party back in politics.

This opinion column does not necessarily reflect the views of Boulder Weekly.

There are other ways of approaching politics than seeing the presidential race as the be all and end all. The PotUS isn't a dictator: there are other political offices, a balance of powers that is at least supposed to keep the president in check (and if they aren't working, perhaps you should address that?), and other ways to get active in the political process. Instead of whining about third parties and how Bernie has "failed", perhaps you should consider their strategies for a moment. They only run presidential candidates as a formality to show that they are serious about federal level politics, and people like me only vote for third party presidential nominees because I refuse to vote either for a woman who participated in multiple wars of aggression or a racist shithead. Third parties know that there are other ways of taking action that are more effective for them than trying to play the same game as the GOP and the Democrats. The Greens exist because frankly, if they didn't a lot of local level environmental concerns would be completely overlooked by the Democrats and actively stomped on by the Republicans in the name of profit.

So just cool your head for once and stop having a tantrum, okay? I'm getting really tired of seeing you constantly whine and bitch and fly off the handle about people you have never talked to about how the political system works. You sound like a petty child.

[Crown]

I'm just fucking sick of Greens, and Libertarians, and Bernie or Bust, and every smug little ass hat who trots out the trite one-liner about how both sides are the same, says how you're a sheep if you vote for Clinton, how Bernie is a sell-out or a traitor or a coward or bought for endorsing her (and yes, I've seen pretty much all of that, or comparable slurs, on Bernie's Facebook page), how fucking principled they are for not voting for Clinton because they either haven't gotten with the fucking times, or have such a warped view of reality that they just don't care.

This is not a business as usual election, and it is not a "lesser of two evils" or "both sides are the same" election.

This is a struggle for America's soul, and the freedom and lives of its people, and others around the world who would be threatened by a Trump presidency. This is a crisis of a magnitude and severity that we haven't faced since the Great Depression and the Second World War. I'm sure that some will scream hyperbole, but I don't care. I believe every word I'm saying.

If you can sit it out, split the vote, and then pat yourself on the back for your supposed principles, then fuck you.

If you give a damn about the future of this world, then welcome aboard.

I have to remind myself that you are most likely still young, but I have to ask; what do you expect will change under a Hillary administration?

Anyway, speaking of these Libertarians you seem to despise; A Milestone for Women.

[Iroscato]

*Semi-coherent stream-of-consciousness writing to follow*

I stand by my argument that Sanders (who I respect and admire, and would prefer over Clinton in a heartbeat) should've stepped aside earlier in the nomination. It would've killed a lot of the momentum of the Bernie-or-Busters months earlier, giving them time to settle down over their collective hissy fit and reconsider Hillary as a candidate. Now there's a risk that too many have come too far, and won't come around before the general.

Personally, I still highly doubt Trump will win. But it won't be as decisive a defeat I reckon, mostly because of the Greens and even Trump getting some of the votes in the name of 'Fuck Hillary'.

I'm not blaming Sanders for creating this monster, I just think it's an unfortunate and potentially damaging side effect of good intentions. Hindsight, as ever, is 20/20.

I still really hope his movement inspires real, systemic change in the US because it's desperately needed. I guess the old phrase about omelettes and eggs applies here.

[The Romulan Republic]

Or you could calm your ass down and think for a second about how two party politics is corrupting your mind and filling it with a whole new level of smug. America's soul? Are you for fucking real?

As I said, I meant every fucking word.

"corrupting my mind"... right. This is exactly the kind of smugness I have come to expect from a lot of fringe/third party folks. Next you'll be saying I'm one of the "sheeple" and telling me to "wake up".

These two politicians are really no different from the last twenty years of presidential candidates.

This has absolutely no basis in fact, and it boggles the mind that anyone could see Trump as a typical candidate.

Do you think Nader lost Al Gore the election? Serious question.

I think that Nader was a contributing factor. Obviously the result cannot be attributed to any one person, and I would be remiss if I did not place considerable blame on the Supreme Court.

Food for thought:

The Bernie Sanders revolution is just getting started

The Bernie for President campaign is over, but the political revolution that he launched against corporate rule is just beginning.

Sanders and close advisors are now strategizing and developing a new organizational structure to keep growing the grassroots rebellion, but a multitude of Bernie supporters are not waiting on a smoke signal from headquarters. Their percolate-up creativity has already burst into new political organizing projects that are advancing this energized populist movement.

One such effort got underway just three days after the final Democratic primary. Some 3,000 Berniecrats from across America gathered in Chicago for “The People’s Summit.” Rather than being morose or cynical about Sanders not winning the nomination, attendees were exuberant about the movement that he galvanized. This extraordinary event was a combination of tent revival and a big workshop for strategizing, organizing and mobilizing. The two-day summit was convened by National Nurses United and co-sponsored by more than 50 diverse and effective democracy-building groups.

This meeting had a minimum of blah-blah and a maximum of planning on how to put experienced, locally based organizers and volunteers directly into growing the movement — starting now. These ever-larger and broader local coalitions will: (1) be rooted in principled, anti-corporate politics; (2) launch direct grassroots initiatives and actions on a range of populist issues; (3) recruit, train and elect thousands of movement candidates to school boards, city councils, state legislatures and other offices; (4) deepen the relationships and sense of shared purpose in this revolutionary democratic movement; and (5)make it fun, putting the party back in politics.

This opinion column does not necessarily reflect the views of Boulder Weekly.

There are other ways of approaching politics than seeing the presidential race as the be all and end all.

No shit its not the be all and end all.

Down ballot matters.

However, the Presidency also matters, a whole fucking lot.

And yes, the Sanders revolution continues. It continues by working from within to move the Democratic Party leftward and ensure the defeat of Trump and the Republicans, rather than choosing self-destructive self-marginalization in the name of ideological "purity".

You know, what Bernie is actually doing by endorsing Clinton.

If you're going to go third party, kindly don't do it in the name of Bernie or those of us who continue to support him. Its disingenuous.

And I have little fondness for third party runs down-ballot either, unless its a rare case where a Left wing third party candidate has the best chance of defeating the Republicans. Otherwise, its just helping the Republicans keep a Congressional majority.

The PotUS isn't a dictator: there are other political offices, a balance of powers that is at least supposed to keep the president in check (and if they aren't working, perhaps you should address that?), and other ways to get active in the political process.

No, the President isn't a dictator. However, as you alluded to, those checks and balances have been and can further be eroded, and I have zero confidence in Congress (even in the uncertain event that it is not Republican-controlled) being able to effectively check Trump.

Besides, the mere fact of Trump's election, even if he never did a single thing, would be a disaster. It would cause uncertainty and stability internationally, disgrace America around the world, serve as propaganda for terrorists, and embolden, encourage, and legitimize bigotry, authoritarianism, and political violence.

Instead of whining about third parties and how Bernie has "failed", perhaps you should consider their strategies for a moment.

I never said Bernie failed. You just flat-out lied.

Bernie is choosing to advance his cause through the only means left to him that might actually succeed. It is people like you who are trying to ensure he fails.

Perhaps you might consider Bernie's strategy.

They only run presidential candidates as a formality to show that they are serious about federal level politics, and people like me only vote for third party presidential nominees because I refuse to vote either for a woman who participated in multiple wars of aggression or a racist shithead. Third parties know that there are other ways of taking action that are more effective for them than trying to play the same game as the GOP and the Democrats. The Greens exist because frankly, if they didn't a lot of local level environmental concerns would be completely overlooked by the Democrats and actively stomped on by the Republicans in the name of profit.

So they run fake Presidential bids that activity undermine serious candidates for no reason other than PR? And this is supposed to make me think better of them?

So just cool your head for once and stop having a tantrum, okay? I'm getting really tired of seeing you constantly whine and bitch and fly off the handle about people you have never talked to about how the political system works. You sound like a petty child.

I find it difficult to suffer fools politely, I'll acknowledge.

That does not change the fact that you are substituting insults and condescension for actually effectively refuting the truth of what I say, which is that right now, it is a choice between Clinton or Trump, and Trump is a deadly threat to the rights, security, prosperity, and lives of everyone.

[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).

[Simon_Jester]

I don't expect Clinton to make America a much better or different place. But I do expect her to make a sincere effort to ensure that America remains a place I can stomach.

Or you could calm your ass down and think for a second about how two party politics is corrupting your mind and filling it with a whole new level of smug. America's soul? Are you for fucking real? These two politicians are really no different from the last twenty years of presidential candidates.

Hillary isn't. Trump is.

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.

But Trump?

This is a man with the self-restraint of a Lyndon Johnson, the personal honesty of a Bill Clinton, the levelheaded judgment, ethics and commitment to racial harmony of a Richard Nixon, and the public policy knowledge of a George Bush, Jr.

Except that Trump lacks the positive features of any of those men, instead combining them into a single great big narcissistic mass of smug, reckless, feckless, toxic bullshitting.

In terms of Trump's background and character, the man is unqualified, actively anti-qualified, for public office. He is anti-qualified in a way that nominee from a major political party has been for a very, very long time. If ever.

We would do better to elect any other president of the past century, than to elect Trump.

We would do better to elect a cardboard cutout of any of those other presidents.

The only reason that excitable liberals call this a "battle for America's soul" is that the prospect of Trump winning the election terrifies them. And they are right to be afraid. Trump is the kind of man who teaches you the true meaning of "how could things get worse?" Trump is the kind of man no one in their right mind delegates responsibility to.

And while Clinton is an un-admirable candidate in her own right, she does not even begin to approach the level of blundering, psychopathic, cannibal hucksterism that is Trump.

The fact that you look at Donald Trump as a presidential candidate and shrug and go "he's just another politician" is... I honestly am having trouble comprehending it. It sounds almost as if you decided in advance, years ago, to do this no matter what. That you would blindly say "they're just politicians from the two big parties, you can't tell them apart" regardless of who the parties nominated. As if you would say that even if one party nominated Charles Manson, or the other party nominated a head of lettuce.

There are other ways of approaching politics than seeing the presidential race as the be all and end all. The PotUS isn't a dictator: there are other political offices, a balance of powers that is at least supposed to keep the president in check (and if they aren't working, perhaps you should address that?), and other ways to get active in the political process...

What is deeply problematic here is that while there are plenty of other forms of power in the US that can restrain the president, the same forces that would elect Trump are the forces that would stop those restraints from interfering with his actions. Pretending that it doesn't matter who wins at the top of the pyramid of power if you can just somehow win all the elections at the bottom...

That's not strategy, that's magical thinking.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thank you Simon_Jester.

And you're God damn right Trump terrifies me.

We are looking at a nominee for a major party, only a few points behind in the polls, who could be President-elect in a little over three months, who is to all appearances more or less openly in collusion with both the Russian government and people who advocate the murder of a political rival and condone those who support the mass murder of women and minorities.

We have a duty, not only as Americans but as thinking beings with consciences, to ensure that Trump loses this election, that he is defeated fair and square by the overwhelming will of the people, not only to ensure that he never takes power, but to ensure that the poisonous ideologies he incites, condones, and represents are discredited and not allowed to become further entrenched in the political mainstream.

[Simon_Jester]

I would disagree about the claim that Trump is in collusion with the Russian government, at least on any level that matters, but the rest is amply sufficient to justify your basic view of the situation.

[Formless]

By the way, I'm ignoring Simon because I don't give two shits about his white knighting. This is about what you have said, and how it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Frankly, most of what he is saying is probably redundant anyway.

As I said, I meant every fucking word.

Sad. You have no idea what this country's history looks like, do you? Trump is positively tame compared to many presidents of the past. This country has never had a soul. You're getting lost in your own rhetoric, and losing sight of rationality in the process.

I'm not going to tell you to "wake up." I'm telling you to grow up. There is a difference. One is smugness, the other is an objective observation of your recent behavior.

This has absolutely no basis in fact, and it boggles the mind that anyone could see Trump as a typical candidate.

As opposed to Bush, who fed on the War on Terror to get re-elected? Heck, a lot of the fear of mexicans reflects the "taking our jobs" shit that the Shrub fed upon. Or perhaps I should go beyond the twenty year mark to make my point. Take out a twenty dollar bill and tell me with a straight face that Trump is unusual.

I think that Nader was a contributing factor. Obviously the result cannot be attributed to any one person, and I would be remiss if I did not place considerable blame on the Supreme Court.

Then you are half right, and half idiotic. Al Gore won the popular vote. End of story! The popular vote is what my vote represents, but it is well known that you can win one and lose the election anyway because of our bizarre electoral college rules. But then, that's the reason I consider my vote in the presidential race to be all but worthless regardless of who I vote for (again, not that I won't tick off the box, it just doesn't mean much except as an affirmation of my morality). Its electoral votes that were the point of contention in that race which the SC had to rule on, which means that any claim that Nader had anything to do with Gore's loss is suspicious at best, and at worst a lie concocted by the democrats to attack the Greens and take lower level offices away from third parties.

The reason I bring this up is that you are already applying the same narrative to Bernie/Bernie supporters, when 1) the race isn't even over yet and 2) the narrative has always been bullshit, and is thus a useful measure of how gullible you are. Stop thinking with your amygdala and use your frontal cortex. Hillary's campaign is all about demonizing Trump and makes very few points in favor of Hillary besides not being Trump. The attacks on Bernie are basically the same logic: blame everyone except Hillary's lack of virtues for her (as yet speculative) loss at the polls. I would be much more inclined to vote for her if someone would make a case that she is the most qualified for the job, but all I see are ad hominem fallacies being flung all over the place by you and other Hillary supporters, all directed at Trump. If that is all she has, she doesn't deserve the office. Unfortunately, two party systems are inherently tribal, so that strategy isn't encouraged.

No shit its not the be all and end all.

Down ballot matters.

However, the Presidency also matters, a whole fucking lot.

And yes, the Sanders revolution continues. It continues by working from within to move the Democratic Party leftward and ensure the defeat of Trump and the Republicans, rather than choosing self-destructive self-marginalization in the name of ideological "purity".

You know, what Bernie is actually doing by endorsing Clinton.

If you're going to go third party, kindly don't do it in the name of Bernie or those of us who continue to support him. Its disingenuous.

And I have little fondness for third party runs down-ballot either, unless its a rare case where a Left wing third party candidate has the best chance of defeating the Republicans. Otherwise, its just helping the Republicans keep a Congressional majority.

Is it so cold up in Canada that the only thing that keeps you warm is burning straw men? I said I'm not voting for Hillary because she has participated in instigating multiple wars of aggression. I would have voted Bernie if he had won, but that has nothing to do with why I'm voting third party.

Lower level politics doesn't just mean federal offices, moron. It also means state legislatures, who write most state level laws. I live in Colorado, which means I have to deal with the Fracking industry and their grand plan to corrupt the very constitution of the state. I have good damn reasons to be a Green around here. And they have nothing to do with federal level politics. But you obviously don't understand or think about politics at any other level, because you pay so much attention to the federal election you forget that most of the pressing domestic issues in this country are effected at this level.

No, the President isn't a dictator. However, as you alluded to, those checks and balances have been and can further be eroded, and I have zero confidence in Congress (even in the uncertain event that it is not Republican-controlled) being able to effectively check Trump.

Besides, the mere fact of Trump's election, even if he never did a single thing, would be a disaster. It would cause uncertainty and stability internationally, disgrace America around the world, serve as propaganda for terrorists, and embolden, encourage, and legitimize bigotry, authoritarianism, and political violence.

CITATION NEEDED, ASSHOLE.

I never said Bernie failed. You just flat-out lied.

Bernie is choosing to advance his cause through the only means left to him that might actually succeed. It is people like you who are trying to ensure he fails.

Perhaps you might consider Bernie's strategy.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you're just acting paranoid. You do, however, keep slandering the "Bernie or Bust" crowd, as if that actually means anything. In other words, you failed to read the context of my post. Just as you have failed every other test of rationality I can think of. I don't see a whole lot of real people going "Bernie or Bust!!!!!" But you keep imagining that they exist and are damaging Hillary.

So they run fake Presidential bids that activity undermine serious candidates for no reason other than PR? And this is supposed to make me think better of them?

They are shots in the dark, you dishonest shill. "Fake" implies that they don't intend to win the election. They do. They just don't expect to win the election, or invest as much into losing it as the GOP and the Dems. There is a difference. Try to cram that fact through the largest hole you have in your skull so that you might learn to argue better in the future.

I find it difficult to suffer fools politely, I'll acknowledge.

That does not change the fact that you are substituting insults and condescension for actually effectively refuting the truth of what I say, which is that right now, it is a choice between Clinton or Trump, and Trump is a deadly threat to the rights, security, prosperity, and lives of everyone.

CITATION NEEDED, ASSHOLE. Prove that Trump will be a deadly threat to anyone. Seriously, provide evidence or shut the fuck up about it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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.

Or you could calm your ass down and think for a second about how two party politics is corrupting your mind and filling it with a whole new level of smug. America's soul? Are you for fucking real? These two politicians are really no different from the last twenty years of presidential candidates.

Do me a favor and get out from under your rock. Normally I respect your intellect, but this has me scratching my head. I am legitimately baffled.

Trump's speeches are outright Hitlerian. Would you like me to translate some of Hitler's speeches so you can compare? He has whipped up authoritarians in a way we have not seen in decades, and openly advocates that we commit war crimes. He is openly racist and misogynistic. Most liars at least acknowledge the existence of the truth, Trump lies so often that it borders on a disconnect with reality. His policy agenda consists of "I am your personal savior". To say nothing of the fact that he is a con-artist of public record.

Nothing in our recent history even comes close to that. Not even Dick Cheney.

It is outright flabbergasting that you would make that statement.

[Formless]

Keep in mind, Alyrium, that I do not like Trump in the slightest. I am well aware of how his rhetoric sounds; I just don't think they are much more than an exaggeration of the same themes that much of the GOP has been using for ages now. Its not like the rest of the party isn't racist, its just that they are masters of political correctness and he isn't. However, much of his policy statements have been supportive of an isolationist policy, far from a warlike one, and if you look at US history that's... actually the norm, not the exception. There are many measurements by which he is part of a trend, not the outside context problem that he has been made out to be. An evil trend, but a trend nonetheless.

[Simon_Jester]

By the way, I'm ignoring Simon because I don't give two shits about his white knighting. This is about what you have said, and how it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Frankly, most of what he is saying is probably redundant anyway.

I have made my assertions. You have not refuted them, nor addressed them, and you have made it plain that you have no intention of trying to do so. Because you don't like the cut of my jib.

Very well. I recognize that you have conceded the point.

Moreover, having conceded the point, you continue to claim that "voted for a war" disqualifies a candidate whose opponent has also supported wars of aggression, and who has the various character defects I pointed out. I can only conclude that you are a hypocritical louse.

This is on top of you being so devoted to your pious condemnation of the two-party system that you didn't even notice the entire 2016 election cycle. It didn't even register on you, you didn't bother to update your "a pox on both their houses, equally" stance regardless of what happened. This level of intellectual laziness is truly stunning.

CITATION NEEDED, ASSHOLE. Prove that Trump will be a deadly threat to anyone. Seriously, provide evidence or shut the fuck up about it.

Look at what he'll do to people's health insurance.

Q.E.D.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Keep in mind, Alyrium, that I do not like Trump in the slightest. I am well aware of how his rhetoric sounds; I just don't think they are much more than an exaggeration of the same themes that much of the GOP has been using for ages now. Its not like the rest of the party isn't racist, its just that they are masters of political correctness and he isn't. However, much of his policy statements have been supportive of an isolationist policy, far from a warlike one, and if you look at US history that's... actually the norm, not the exception. There are many measurements by which he is part of a trend, not the outside context problem that he has been made out to be. An evil trend, but a trend nonetheless.

This looks a great deal like rationalization to me. The GOP coalition has always included racists, and they have typically been dog-whistled to and the GOP has engaged in voter suppression and the like based on race. But this... this is qualitatively different. No mainstream republican has called for the mass deportation of legal immigrants and the closure of our borders to refugees for a good long while now. He is not just dog-whistling the white nationalists--he actually is one. And that is the extent of his isolationism. On other matters he is positively belligerent, and his temperament is unstable.

Sure, I will agree he is not an outside context problem and is part of a trend. He is however at the far end of the confidence interval for variation about that trend, the slope of which is dangerous. If you look at one of the other orthogonal axes we could use "technical competence", you will also find that he is dangerously incompetent. Most of the time with republicans, they have an incorrect worldview through which the facts and their meaning are understood. This motherfucker is operating on entirely fabricated facts.

To say nothing of the fact that he is using the rhetoric of an authoritarian dictator, without having the technical competence that might lead us to believe he is doing it to manipulate his base but does not actually hold an authoritarian worldview. He does actually have an authoritarian worldview. Even Bush Jr and Nixon did not go that far.

[The Romulan Republic]

By the way, I'm ignoring Simon because I don't give two shits about his white knighting. This is about what you have said, and how it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Frankly, most of what he is saying is probably redundant anyway.

Funny, I thought on this board you were actually supposed to provide evidence for your positions, not refuse to debate or defend your arguments because you have no argument/don't like the other poster.

Sad. You have no idea what this country's history looks like, do you? Trump is positively tame compared to many presidents of the past. This country has never had a soul. You're getting lost in your own rhetoric, and losing sight of rationality in the process.

More condescension and insults, in lieu of actual solid arguments.

Yes, you could list a lot of horribly bigoted Presidents from decades or centuries ago. Your cheap, childish insults aside, I know full well how shitty much of America's history is, though I do not let that descend into sweeping, general anti-Americanism as you seem to.

But we were supposed to have moved on. Forgive me for holding a 21st. Century candidate to a higher standard than a 19th. Century President.

Besides, I dare say you'd have a hard time finding a President who was potentially a puppet of a foreign despot.

I'm not going to tell you to "wake up." I'm telling you to grow up. There is a difference. One is smugness, the other is an objective observation of your recent behavior.

As above, just condescension and insults.

As opposed to Bush, who fed on the War on Terror to get re-elected? Heck, a lot of the fear of mexicans reflects the "taking our jobs" shit that the Shrub fed upon. Or perhaps I should go beyond the twenty year mark to make my point. Take out a twenty dollar bill and tell me with a straight face that Trump is unusual.

See above reg. "times have changed".

And Bush is a candle to Trump's roaring forest fire.

Bush never advocated banning an entire religion from entering the country.
Bush never asked a foreign despot to intervene in an election illegally on his behalf.
Bush never had a top adviser calling for Gore or Kerry's execution.

Then you are half right, and half idiotic. Al Gore won the popular vote. End of story! The popular vote is what my vote represents, but it is well known that you can win one and lose the election anyway because of our bizarre electoral college rules. But then, that's reason I consider my vote in the presidential race to be all but worthless regardless of who I vote for (again, not that I won't tick off the box, it just doesn't mean much). Its electoral votes that were the point of contention in that race which the SC had to rule on, which means that any claim that Nader had anything to do with Gore's loss is suspicious at best, and at worst a lie concocted by the democrats to attack the Greens and take lower level offices away from third parties.

That Gore won the popular vote does not shield Nader of responsibility. If he helped swing the result in Florida, then he helped bring about a situation where Al Gore lost the electoral college.

The reason I bring this up is that you are already applying the same narrative to Bernie/Bernie supporters, when 1) the race isn't even over yet

I am trying to apply the lessons of history to the present situation and help avoid a more disastrous version of 2000. Something you seem determined to refuse to do.

and 2) the narrative has always been bullshit, and is thus a useful measure of how gullible you are. Stop thinking with your amygdala and use your frontal cortex.

More substitution of insults and condescension for actual argument.

Hillary's campaign is all about demonizing Trump and makes very few points in favor of Hillary besides not being Trump.

Bullshit.

1. "Demonizing" implies that the criticisms of Trump are not merited. So explain to me why you are defending the bigoted, authoritarian inciter of violence?

2. Clinton is running on a strong liberal platform, shaped after extensive cooperation with the Sanders campaign. Even before that, she was running on such things as a 12 dollar an hour minimum wage.

The attacks on Bernie are basically the same logic: blame everyone except Hillary's lack of virtues for her (as yet speculative) loss at the polls.

Again, bullshit.

And actually, I predict that Clinton will likely win.

That doesn't make me any less angry at those who are trying to make it less likely, or more inclined to take chances with the future.

And I believe that it is imperative to defeat Trump by as wide a margin as possible, both to undermine the inevitable claims of cheating by his supporters (and likely himself), and to send a message that the voters repudiate utterly what he represents.

A narrow Clinton win still ensconces fascism and bigotry more thoroughly in the mainstream, and is thus a disaster.

I would be much more inclined to vote for her if someone would make a case that she is the most qualified for the job, but all I see are ad hominem fallacies being flung all over the place by you and other Hillary supporters, all directed at Trump. If that is all she has, she doesn't deserve the office. Unfortunately, two party systems are inherently tribal, so that strategy isn't encouraged.

See above regarding Clinton's/the Democrats' platform.

Also, you will immediately specify what "ad hominem" you feel I have used against Trump. For that matter, it would be difficult to use an ad hominem against Trump, as the essence of an ad hominem is attacking the speaker rather than the argument in a debate, and Trump has very little actual substantive and consistent policy beyond his own loathsome character and associations.

In any case, personal character has always been fair game in an election, and is relevant to weather someone should be President. Particularly when their character is as poisonous as Trump's.

It also seems to me that you have gone beyond attacking Clinton to actively defending Trump.

Seriously, you see an article detailing Trump's ties to people who are calling for the mass murder of women and minorities, and the execution of his main political opponent, and you defend him.

Is it so cold up in Canada that the only thing that keeps you warm is burning straw men? I said I'm not voting for Hillary because she has participated in instigating multiple wars of aggression. I would have voted Bernie if he had won, but that has nothing to do with why I'm voting third party.

Now we're going for nationality-based insults?

And you used an article about the continuation of Bernie's revolution in defence of your third party bullshit. That is what I objected to.

Lower level politics doesn't just mean federal offices, moron. It also means state legislatures, who write most state level laws. I live in Colorado, which means I have to deal with the Fracking industry and their grand plan to corrupt the very constitution of the state. I have good damn reasons to be a Green around here. And they have nothing to do with federal level politics. But you obviously don't understand or think about politics at any other level, because you pay so much attention to the federal election you forget that most of the pressing domestic issues in this country are effected at this level.

I obviously know that its not just about federal offices. Hell, I just recently posted an article about the health care referendum in Colorado, which is also my state (as an absentee voter).

This changes nothing of what I said, which is that third party candidates could hurt congressional races (and hell, local races, now that you mention it).

There are situations where I would not object to a third party run, but it would depend on the math of the race in question.

CITATION NEEDED, ASSHOLE.

You want a citation for the obvious potential consequences of Trump's victory?

Or for the claim that the system of checks and balances has been eroded (which you yourself alluded to previously)?

Or both?

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you're just acting paranoid.

You're just lying.

You do, however, keep slandering the "Bernie or Bust" crowd, as if that actually means anything. In other words, you failed to read the context of my post. Just as you have failed every other test of rationality I can think of. I don't see a whole lot of real people going "Bernie or Bust!!!!!" But you keep imagining that they exist and are damaging Hillary.

Now we're going for false accusations of mental illness?

I mean fuck, you're denying the existence of the very thing you are yourself are?

If anyone's crazy here, it sure as fuck ain't me.

They are shots in the dark, you dishonest shill. "Fake" implies that they don't intend to win the election. They do. They just don't expect to win the election, or invest as much into losing it as the GOP and the Dems. There is a difference. Try to cram that fact through the largest hole you have in your skull so that you might learn to argue better in the future.

If they think they have any real chance of winning, they're delusional.

CITATION NEEDED, ASSHOLE. Prove that Trump will be a deadly threat to anyone. Seriously, provide evidence or shut the fuck up about it.

See the fucking article I just posted. Or, you know, any of the countless articles posted in the election threads discussing his incitement to violence, his plan to kill the families of terrorists (war crime), his plan to throw our allies under the bus to extort money from them...

Screaming "citation needed" for things that have already been established just shows that you are a bullying man child who will ignore facts and evidence and slander his opponents. Just like Trump.

Edit: I do apologize for the length of this post. Its a lot of stuff to go through, and I will try to be more succinct in the future.

[The Romulan Republic]

Look, because this is rapidly spiralling into a very large and messy argument, I'm going to try to simplify this down to two key points, which I think encapsulate the most important points of my argument:

1. Trump's candidacy represents a severe threat to the peace, prosperity, security, basic rights, and lives of the people of this country, and this world. I base this conclusion on the following articles (among many other possible examples):

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/l ... z4FjE3YPwz
https://cicilline.house.gov/press-relea ... fied-intel
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/d ... sm-history

In addition to the article I posted that lead to this whole argument.

2. Third party candidates who split votes off from the Democrats, and opponents of Trump who refuse to vote for Clinton, take votes away from Clinton and thereby increase the chances of a Trump victory. This seems rather self-evident, as no third party candidate is currently competitive, and any votes going to them are, quite obviously, not going to Clinton. I therefore rest my case on this point, and will focus on the first.

Edited to fix links.

[Formless]

Simon, I read your post and the reason I ignored it was that it had nothing to do with what I am actually here to argue. I am not a Trump supporter. You can cherry pick whatever quotes you want that I have written, and that will still be true. What brought me out of the lurker mode was irritation at the sheer level of doomsaying that seems to emanate from TRR basically every time he posts (although he isn't the only one, natch, just the worst), and more importantly his decision to slander third party voters for stupid reasons. If you have evidence that Trump is such a threat to actual lives as to automatically justify voting Clinton, then we can have an argument. But as it is, I have already dismissed him as a contemptible asshole, which I suppose qualifies as a partial concession of your point. The one thing I haven't conceded is the idea that he is somehow worse or more dangerous than the two Bush presidents were or, for that matter, Ronald "Ray Gun" Reagan. I haven't seen any evidence for that, because, well, no one has given any besides citing his speeches. I think we can do better than character attacks, even character attacks I'm inclined to agree with. After all, there are studies out there that say political attack adds are ineffective or even counterproductive, so I think you can see where I'm coming from.

This looks a great deal like rationalization to me. The GOP coalition has always included racists, and they have typically been dog-whistled to and the GOP has engaged in voter suppression and the like based on race. But this... this is qualitatively different. No mainstream republican has called for the mass deportation of legal immigrants and the closure of our borders to refugees for a good long while now. He is not just dog-whistling the white nationalists--he actually is one. And that is the extent of his isolationism. On other matters he is positively belligerent, and his temperament is unstable.

That depends on one reading of history. No one has done mass deportation in US history, but we did at one point in history round up all of the Japanese Americans in this country regardless of their citizenship, confiscate much of their property, and put them into concentration camps. Plus, it could be argued that the reason no one did mass deportation was that the immegration laws of this country have historically been so draconian and racist that previous politicians didn't feel the need. For a very, very long time Chinese could not enter this country, and even after the laws were relaxed at first only a few hundred could come into the country in a year. See what I mean? And again, a lot of the whole "Mexicans taking our jobs!" nonsense from the last twenty years never officially went as far as what Trump has gone for, but it always carried the undertone of deporting illegal immigrants en mass. Again, I don't think he is different except that he has escalated, and added an isolationist twist to the conversation because of his dislike of the Iraq war (and hey, at least that is a bit of common ground between him and I). When you talk about qualitative differences, I think you are forgetting that they require a categorical difference in attitude in order to prove. I think his attitude is pretty much the same as the GOP during Bush Jr.'s tenure. But a lot of people are forgetting what that political climate was like.

Sure, I will agree he is not an outside context problem and is part of a trend. He is however at the far end of the confidence interval for variation about that trend, the slope of which is dangerous. If you look at one of the other orthogonal axes we could use "technical competence", you will also find that he is dangerously incompetent. Most of the time with republicans, they have an incorrect worldview through which the facts and their meaning are understood. This motherfucker is operating on entirely fabricated facts.

If you want to talk about fabricated facts, may I remind you of the Weapons of Mass Destruction lie that got us into the Iraq war? I don't think that is much of a novelty unique to Trump either, although here we can see a categorical difference between what kinds of dishonesty that Trump and Bush were attracted to, I'll give you that.

Plus, a lot of people have noted that Bush Jr. was an idiot and a cheerleader more than he was a leader. Including a lot of people who worked for him.

To say nothing of the fact that he is using the rhetoric of an authoritarian dictator, without having the technical competence that might lead us to believe he is doing it to manipulate his base but does not actually hold an authoritarian worldview. He does actually have an authoritarian worldview. Even Bush Jr and Nixon did not go that far.

Or rather, did not go that far in speeches. Keep in mind that behind closed doors, politicians feel free to say things that they wouldn't admit to the public. There are other ways to gauge their real political attitudes than what they say in public, like what they do in office.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That depends on one reading of history. No one has done mass deportation in US history, but we did at one point in history round up all of the Japanese Americans in this country regardless of their citizenship, confiscate much of their property, and put them into concentration camps. Plus, it could be argued that the reason no one did mass deportation was that the immegration laws of this country have historically been so draconian and racist that previous politicians didn't feel the need. For a very, very long time Chinese could not enter this country, and even after the laws were relaxed at first only a few hundred could come into the country in a year. See what I mean?

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.

And again, a lot of the whole "Mexicans taking our jobs!" nonsense from the last twenty years never officially went as far as what Trump has gone for, but it always carried the undertone of deporting illegal immigrants en mass. Again, I don't think he is different except that he has escalated, and added an isolationist twist to the conversation because of his dislike of the Iraq war (and hey, at least that is a bit of common ground between him and I). When you talk about qualitative differences, I think you are forgetting that they require a categorical difference in attitude in order to prove. I think his attitude is pretty much the same as the GOP during Bush Jr.'s tenure. But a lot of people are forgetting what that political climate was like.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you want to talk about fabricated facts, may I remind you of the Weapons of Mass Destruction lie that got us into the Iraq war? I don't think that is much of a novelty unique to Trump either, although here we can see a categorical difference between what kinds of dishonesty that Trump and Bush were attracted to, I'll give you that.

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

[Formless]

Look, because this is rapidly spiralling into a very large and messy argument, I'm going to try to simplify this down to two key points, which I think encapsulate the most important points of my argument:

Thank you, that is a more than welcome change of pace.

1. Trump's candidacy represents a severe threat to the peace, prosperity, security, basic rights, and lives of the people of this country, and this world. I base this conclusion on the following articles (among many other possible examples):

The first article is not sufficient evidence of either a conspiracy between Trump and Putin nor that Trump will actually do anything traitorous in the future. Indeed, it is the opinion of one man that one particular statement, made as a joke, constitutes treason. Its not exactly an objective source, nor does it prove your point. I don't like Trump, but I don't see how he is that much more dangerous than Hillary. Lets remember what is in dispute here, TRR.

The second is more conspiratorial nonsense, and you are citing the website of a particular congressman to boot. Again, this does not constitute hard or particularly compelling evidence that Trump is in collusion with Putin or the Russians, nor that he is a particularly dangerous candidate for president as compared to the competition.

Article number 3 is an elaboration of something which I was well aware of: Trump is a racist. However, what is not said is what kind of racist shit he wants to actually do while in office, and whether the damage will be irreperable. Keep in mind that the mass deportation stuff is a huge undertaking and will force him to go through red tape whether he likes it or not-- if nothing else, it costs money. Moreover, it is one of those things where those checks and balances come into play-- personally, I would always love to see a president actually get impeached and kicked out of office some day, if only because it would show that our democracy works. So it doesn't prove that he's dangerous, just that he's an asshole undeserving of office. It may seem like a minor difference, but keep in mind why I am here. I won't be voting for him-- I just don't see any compelling reason to vote for his biggest competitor.

2. Third party candidates who split votes off from the Democrats, and opponents of Trump who refuse to vote for Clinton, take votes away from Clinton and thereby increase the chances of a Trump victory. This seems rather self-evident, as no third party candidate is currently competitive, and any votes going to them are, quite obviously, not going to Clinton. I therefore rest my case on this point, and will focus on the first.

Nothing can be claimed self evident unless you want to say "Cogito Ergo Sum." In reality, the system works in such a way that this phenomenon does not happen. Because of the Electoral College, the popular vote really doesn't mean anything. There are four different elections in our country's history where the popular vote was overridden by the electoral vote (although the most recent example was rife with probable corruption). Thus you need a lot better evidence for this phenomenon than anecdotes about how Al Gore lost, because it sure as hell looks like you are arguing from ignorance. In other words, I reject this argument as the logical fallacy it appears to be. Try again.

[Simon_Jester]

Nothing can be claimed self evident unless you want to say "Cogito Ergo Sum." In reality, the system works in such a way that this phenomenon does not happen. Because of the Electoral College, the popular vote really doesn't mean anything. There are four different elections in our country's history where the popular vote was overridden by the electoral vote (although the most recent example was rife with probable corruption). Thus you need a lot better evidence for this phenomenon than anecdotes about how Al Gore lost, because it sure as hell looks like you are arguing from ignorance. In other words, I reject this argument as the logical fallacy it appears to be. Try again.

So to be clear, it sounds like your argument summarizes as:

1) The Electoral College has overridden the popular vote on four occasions.

2) The 2000 election was only one of those occasions.

3) Therefore, it is fallacious to predict that votes cast for a third party candidate can cause an ideologically similar mainstream candidate to lose an election in a key swing state.

While (1) and (2) are clearly true, I don't see how they lead to conclusion (3).

Would you mind presenting me with a more structured version of your argument here? I'm trying to parse the logic of it.

If you have evidence that Trump is such a threat to actual lives as to automatically justify voting Clinton, then we can have an argument.

I would argue I have already done so- look at:

1) His stated intentions in regards to health insurance and their predictable consequences, and

2) His stated intentions in regards to his idea of 'national security.'

You may counter (2) by saying that checks and balances or constitutional protections would stop him from actually doing the things he wants to do- e.g. that the First Amendment stops him from banning Muslims from immigrating to the US.

The counter to your countermove is that while Trump may fail in doing these things that will cause injustice and death, he does not get some kind of extra credit points for wanting to do bad things just because they are impossible.

If I want to kick puppies, but have no feet to do it with, I am not somehow morally superior to someone who does have feet. Nor am I morally neutral on account of my not having actually kicked a puppy.

As a hypothetical, suppose presidential candidate Jones wanted to open concentration camps for left-handed people. The fact that if Jones tried to do so he'd hopefully fail does not mean that he should be treated as anything other than "the sort of person who opens concentration camps." Jones deserves to be treated as if he actually will do every bad thing he says he'll do.

I extend this rule to all presidential candidates. A man who says he'll abolish the Department of Education should be treated as a man who, given the opportunity, will do that. A man who says he'll kill hostages to coerce foreigners into doing his will should be treated as a man who, given the opportunity, will do that. A man who says he'll shoot the political opposition should be treated as a man who, given the opportunity, will do that.

There is no reason to assume he is a morally neutral man who just promises to do bad things so that bad people will support him.

Ignoring this simple principle is a very bad idea. It leads to exactly the class of mistake made by many early 20th century conservatives who supported militant fascists, figuring that the militant fascists couldn't "really" be as bloodthirsty and destructive as they claimed, that once in office they would do all the same things ordinary conservatives do, just a bit more forcefully.

If someone openly declares or allows his trusted subordinates to declare that he intends to trample human rights... believe him.

The one thing I haven't conceded is the idea that he is somehow worse or more dangerous than the two Bush presidents were or, for that matter, Ronald "Ray Gun" Reagan.

Which is because you aren't updating your perception of the world to reflect the events of the 2015-16 election cycle. If you keep your mind firmly frozen in the past of 2014 or earlier, of course the Republican candidate can't be worse than Dubya, because they would never be so foolish as to nominate one of their radicals, let alone a bungling narcissistic demagogue who's been headed for a beating in the general elections since day one.

Thing is... that turned out to not be true. The Republicans can nominate someone so grossly unfit for the office of the presidency. Someone who actually is worse than the usual moderately slimy "power to the suits!" sort of people that both parties normally tap for the nomination.

If you'd been paying attention and updating your beliefs to match current events, you would have noticed this.

You're making stock arguments that have been used at least since the 1980s if not earlier to justify the stock position "a pox on both their houses, I'm voting third party." The problem is that these arguments are not always applicable. They're not literally always true- and this election cycle happens to be an exception to the general rules.

I haven't seen any evidence for that, because, well, no one has given any besides citing his speeches.

Since Trump has never held public office, has no record as a policy expert advocating consistent positions, and declines to publish coherent policy statements or a credible semblance of a platform...

How on earth do you expect anyone to present you with any evidence but his speeches? As a political figure, the man is nothing but a big pile of speeches; the sum total of his record is based on two things.

One is his speeches. The other is the kind of life he's led and the way he's conducted himself during his life.

Can he be presumed to be a morally neutral person simply because he has no prior experience in elected office? That makes little sense.