I'd like to see the logic of the 4 Trump voters still hanging on. If it's anything other than "not Hillary," defend your position. After this latest mess, how can you possibly support this lunatic? Really. He hits all the markers for being clinically insane.
a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Oh, mine's just "there's no "grue", "I wouldn't/aren't allowed to vote" or "third party" option, and I wanted to see the results".
As I've said elsewhere, my wife will be more willing to consider globe-trotting if your country goes down in flames or BECOMES GREAT AGAIN IN A VERY HIGH-ENERGY MANNER.
I also can't vote, and found the lack of a third option to represent that fucking hilarious because of who made the poll.
I also can't vote, and found the lack of a third option to represent that fucking hilarious because of who made the poll.
So, to recap, my options are "risk getting arrested at the polling place" and "risk getting arrested at the polling place"... I thought your "lesser of two evils" system was supposed to offer two different degrees of bad.
I would guess the reason is probably that people have the right to vote for whomever they want, and don't have to defend shit, to you or anyone else. Calling people out to defend themselves in an opinion poll is pretty poor taste.
Last week during the DNC all the facebook posts were slightly veiled versions of "I don't like Hillary, but I'm voting for her and urging everyone else because I fear Trump."
This week I'm starting to see the inevitable responses from within the party, "Hillary is actually awesome, and I'm voting for her because she's awesome, not because she's the lesser of two evils."
This week I'm starting to see the inevitable responses from within the party, "Hillary is actually awesome, and I'm voting for her because she's awesome, not because she's the lesser of two evils."
Dave
Staff member
The only reason I'm voting Hillary is because she's Not Trump. How is that different?
@Ravenpoe 's post was a nice say of saying you're creating an environment that is not conducive to the kind of discussion you want. Why would anyone want to discuss their political support (or even lack thereof) when you appear ready to fly off the handle at anyone who dares. Maybe if you'd look less like you were spoiling for a fight and more willing to have a mature discussion, people would be willing to respond.
Not so much fly off the handle as give them a good shake and yell, "what the hell is wrong with you?"
But really, is anyone going to try to make the case for Trump without going to "he's not the other one"?
Hillary wasn't my first choice, no. But I'm pretty certain she's not stark raving loony. KO gives a pretty good case that The Donald probably is. The PCL-R is a professionally recognized diagnostic tool.
I may start with "She's not Trump," but the list of reasons to not vote for him gets longer and longer every day. Johnson and Stein aren't even worth considering. Not just for their third-partiness, but now that they've started pandering to the anti-vaxx crowd they've lost any respect I might have ever given them.
There are plenty of defensible reasons to vote Trump. To be clear, my listing them would be playing Devil's Advocate, but they're there.
You're falling into the "Charlie trap": by dismissing all possible supporters of Trump as being completely and utterly stupid and/or crazy, you're showing that you're not actually open to debate, anyway - so there's little reason for them to engage you at all.
You're falling into the "Charlie trap": by dismissing all possible supporters of Trump as being completely and utterly stupid and/or crazy, you're showing that you're not actually open to debate, anyway - so there's little reason for them to engage you at all.
This. I actually wrote a post in another thread (maybe even this one) that I think sums it up well, but I'm at work so can't really go searching for it. But basically, it boils down to don't assume that everyone that disagrees with you is a monster or an idiot, because that sort of mentality, in anything, dies nothing but foster close mindedness, limit growth, and fracture cooperation.
Unless the discussion's about steak. Because people who want it well done really are monsters, idiots and miscreants, all at the same time. And they probably eat babies, too.
GasBandit
Staff member
I've said it multiple times - Trump is not actually a candidate, he is a grenade in human form, and a rather large amount of people want to throw him at DC. You can say "how can you pick up a grenade, it's clearly a deadly explosive that will kill you" all you want, but the fact of the matter is the DC ivory tower establishment has reached such proportions that it's drawing comparisons to the hunger games. If trump was up against anybody besides hillary, he'd have no chance at all. But the Democrat party rallied behind the candidate that exemplifies everything wrong, diseased, twisted, nepotistic, criminal, and mercenary about US politics more than any other.
I'm still voting Johnson, but I don't begrudge anybody their Trump vote - because if you consider "I'm voting hillary, despite hating her, because I fear trump" to be a valid reason then so is the other way around.
I'm still voting Johnson, but I don't begrudge anybody their Trump vote - because if you consider "I'm voting hillary, despite hating her, because I fear trump" to be a valid reason then so is the other way around.
This exact scenario also came up in the police thread, where Null tried to back OC in a corner. It's stupid and shouldn't be happening in a thread where you want honest discourse.
Texas is probably a lost cause, anyway. No point in begrudging you the Johnson vote. Just hope you don't get the measles.
And to use your grenade metaphor, some of the folks at *both* podiums at the conventions are the ones those people want that grenade shoved up the butt of.
No, it's not Nader supporters who cost Gore the election. It's Gore/Democratic Party who cost Gore the election, partly by not appealing to the people who felt that Nader/Green Party best represented them. Green Party supporters don't owe the Democrats a fucking thing. It's not their fault the Dems put up a weak candidate and they shouldn't have to sacrifice their vote for the person who best represents them to fix the Democratic Party's mistakes. And that includes this election as well. The Democrats chose a candidate with a ton of baggage that Republicans love to hate rather than one that could appeal to the angry Republicans who selected Trump over a dozen other Republicans in the primaries. It's not the fault of third parties if the choices of the Democratic and Republican parties leads to President Trump.
My vote for Trump is a misguided attempt to create material for comedians.
True. They've rigged the system so much that it's nearly impossible for a third party to win, sadly. A Clinton/Trump/Sanders/X (choose some Republican candidate you'd've liked - Cruz, or Kasich, or Christie) general election would've been much more interesting. Even if it was with some French two-rounds thing.
I look at it this way: It's not a vote for Clinton, it's a vote for the EPA. It's a vote for LGBQT rights. It's a vote for not mass-deporting immigrants. It's a vote for not banning entire religions. It's a vote for Supreme Court nominations that will have influence for decades.
There are a lot of things I don't like about Hillary Clinton's policies. But even taking that into consideration, I feel she is a much better choice for the United States, and for the world, heading to the future. And so I will vote for Hillary Clinton, even though I would have preferred it if Bernie had won the nomination.
There are a lot of things I don't like about Hillary Clinton's policies. But even taking that into consideration, I feel she is a much better choice for the United States, and for the world, heading to the future. And so I will vote for Hillary Clinton, even though I would have preferred it if Bernie had won the nomination.
You ask that after seeing that the 2 people who tell you they selected Trump aren't American citizens?Not so much fly off the handle as give them a good shake and yell, "what the hell is wrong with you?"
You should be voting for Trump. He thinks there something wrong with foreigners, too.
You can vote for the Green Party and support those same things. Yet Green Party supporters are going to be bullied into voting for Clinton and then blamed if she doesn't win (even though it's up to Clinton to appeal to them over Stein, they don't owe Clinton their votes--there's a reason they are Greens and not Democrats).
I felt Gore lost the election from listening to image consultants. Instead of being himself, a stiff man in a blue suit. He listened to consultants and tried to act like a down home dude, that grew up on a plantation. Then he wore obnoxious clothes that did not fit his personality. And he came of weaker looking than Jimmy Carter (who actually was a pretty bad ass guy.)
Perhaps I can ask the question then?
As a Canadian and neutral to this debate, I'm quite baffled that Trump has come this far. On our end, he's ridiculed on a daily basis but I admit he's quite entertaining.
To summarize, most people I know feel we're watching America blow itself up.
How is he exactly getting support despite being in non-stop controversy?
Why are people voting for him? Is it due to being a blind Republican supporter or because they dislike the Snake Queen?
Do you really believe he'll make America great again?
As a Canadian and neutral to this debate, I'm quite baffled that Trump has come this far. On our end, he's ridiculed on a daily basis but I admit he's quite entertaining.
To summarize, most people I know feel we're watching America blow itself up.
How is he exactly getting support despite being in non-stop controversy?
Why are people voting for him? Is it due to being a blind Republican supporter or because they dislike the Snake Queen?
Do you really believe he'll make America great again?
Last edited:
Let me ask you this, when did you stop beating your wife?
And remember to defend your choice.
There are a lot of problems with Stein. For one thing, while she is not technically anti-vaxx, she's decidedly non-committal in her statements on the issue and from a medical doctor, that's troubling. She attacks GMO producers using debunked myths (particularly one about a supposed 200,000 farmers in India who committed suicide due to GMOs) since actual studies do not support anti-GMO thinking. Third, the Green Party has no significant base of support. According to their own numbers, they have something like an 18% success rate in local elections. Jill Stein herself managed 0.36% of the vote in the 2012 presidential election, so if she did 100 times better this round, she STILL wouldn't have a majority. Fourth, she wants to eliminate fossil fuel usage by 2030 but also eschews nuclear power, which would be necessary at least as a stopgap measure. Fifth, her grasp of financial policy seems tenuous to poor, and her plan to cancel student loan debt is based on a serious misunderstanding of both what the bailout entailed and how quantitative easing works.
To quote from Slate:
Wait, write off student loans through quantitative easing? What? Is that really what she's saying? Yes, that is what she's saying. Here is Stein describing her understanding of the Wall Street bailout and explaining how it relates to her student loan plan:
(The bailout involved) about $17 trillion if you include the free loans. And the free loans largely got paid back. ... Forget about the free loans and just consider the debt that was canceled. That was $4 trillion in the form of quantitative easing. So that’s not money that was transferred to them. It’s simply a debt that was bought up by the U.S. government, and then essentially zeroed out, canceled. So it didn’t put money in their pockets so to speak. But it rid them of all that debt that they would otherwise have to pay. So that’s exactly what we are calling for here, a quantitative easing which is not money in their pocket. It’s essentially that the government has bought up that loan and it tears up the contract. It’s over.
This is wrong. Flat wrong. Quantitative easing was an unconventional monetary policy tool the Federal Reserve used to try and revive the economy after the financial crisis once it had emptied its normal bag of tricks. There have been vigorous debates about whether it was wise, or whether it worked. But it did not involve buying and canceling debt owed by the banks. Quite the opposite—it involved buying and holding onto debts owned by the banks (or other investors, for that matter), such as Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities.
This might sound like a small distinction if you're not a monetary policy obsessive. But it's absolutely essential to understanding what the Fed was doing, and the rationale behind it. (Among other things, holding onto the debts, rather than canceling them, was a key part of how the Fed planned to contain inflation down the line.) Stein's description is so far off, it's as if someone asked Stein how to play basketball, and she answered that teams scored points by kicking the ball off the backboard. /SlateThis is wrong. Flat wrong. Quantitative easing was an unconventional monetary policy tool the Federal Reserve used to try and revive the economy after the financial crisis once it had emptied its normal bag of tricks. There have been vigorous debates about whether it was wise, or whether it worked. But it did not involve buying and canceling debt owed by the banks. Quite the opposite—it involved buying and holding onto debts owned by the banks (or other investors, for that matter), such as Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities.
So for those reasons, I cannot vote for Stein.
See, what I consider to be (a small part of) the problem is that people treat Trump like he's this big New Thing. He may be somewhat new in America, but he's really not dissimilar from Farage, or Wilders, or Berlusconi if you go back a bit, or Putin, or Orban, or Erdogan. All of these people were voted in, some with huge majorities.
A Strong Leader who Dares to Say What Can't Be Said, someone who's willing to break through the liberal bias and the enforced left Goodthink, someone who represents a return to Values, and the Good Old Times, someone who's willing to oust the (current) corrupt establishment, someone who will defend the Middle Class White Guy who feels all this multicultural b*llsh*t is just making everything harder for him, someone who'll bring back Order and Structure and who doesn't mind that "us regular folks" don't want to think about politics all the time, just get on with it, someone who'll stop all those scary foreigners/Muslims/the West/others from coming and taking our jobs, someone who'll Make [Country] Great Again, ...
Not all of the above apply in that exact form (f.e., Erdogan doesn't intend to push out Muslims), but there's a lot of parallels. Trump is, in some way, an exponent of this and the fact that he managed to get in as a name for one of the Two Big Ones is rare - these usually/often had to muscle up as their country's equivalent of a third party candidate - but otherwise...Eh. Berlusconi was elected despite being convicted of fraud, he's had media scandals, tax scandals, statutory rape charges, bribing judges, and all of that hanging over his head and he still managed to get re-elected a dozen times with overwhelming majorities....And even now, there's still a large group of Italians who want him back. A lot of people want/need a strong leader willing to stand up for them, and to defend them. A lot of people, given the choice, would prefer a (benevolent) dictator. It's a failure of (mostly) left intellectuals to continue to think that if only given the chance and some education, all people will suddenly cherish having power and having a voice. The only "useful" thing they feel they can do with their voice is say "fuck you".
A Strong Leader who Dares to Say What Can't Be Said, someone who's willing to break through the liberal bias and the enforced left Goodthink, someone who represents a return to Values, and the Good Old Times, someone who's willing to oust the (current) corrupt establishment, someone who will defend the Middle Class White Guy who feels all this multicultural b*llsh*t is just making everything harder for him, someone who'll bring back Order and Structure and who doesn't mind that "us regular folks" don't want to think about politics all the time, just get on with it, someone who'll stop all those scary foreigners/Muslims/the West/others from coming and taking our jobs, someone who'll Make [Country] Great Again, ...
Not all of the above apply in that exact form (f.e., Erdogan doesn't intend to push out Muslims
), but there's a lot of parallels. Trump is, in some way, an exponent of this and the fact that he managed to get in as a name for one of the Two Big Ones is rare - these usually/often had to muscle up as their country's equivalent of a third party candidate - but otherwise...Eh. Berlusconi was elected despite being convicted of fraud, he's had media scandals, tax scandals, statutory rape charges, bribing judges, and all of that hanging over his head and he still managed to get re-elected a dozen times with overwhelming majorities....And even now, there's still a large group of Italians who want him back. A lot of people want/need a strong leader willing to stand up for them, and to defend them. A lot of people, given the choice, would prefer a (benevolent) dictator. It's a failure of (mostly) left intellectuals to continue to think that if only given the chance and some education, all people will suddenly cherish having power and having a voice. The only "useful" thing they feel they can do with their voice is say "fuck you".Aye. Early on in Trump's rise through the primaries, Toronto's media was pointing out the similarities. Well, especially the reporter who had been a city hall correspondent during Ford's tenure, and then coincidentally became the Washington correspondent before the primaries got under way.