U.S. Elections: Apocalypse upon the horizon

[Shryke]

17 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

A person can agree with a portion of a Trump's view and disagree with another portion.  

I'll do it right now.  After watching that Trump video, I'll agree that genetics plays a role in intelligence and other attributes.  However, unlike Trump, I also acknowledge that environment plays an important role in intelligence and other attributes.

FNR commented on the genetics portion.  Until he chimes in on the environment portion, it's not clear what his views are on that.

Again, stop being a rube. The only reason to even respond there is to defend Trump. He literally posted to tell us that Trump's views are "not a ridiculous notion". And to say "Well, he won't enforce a breeding program, so calm down".

[ljkeane]

27 minutes ago, mormont said:

None of these things are compatible with campaigning consistently over a period of decades, by various means, and across national boundaries to improve the health of others. A completely sensible and obvious position, whether or not you agree.

I think it's fairly unlikely the Clintons are psychopaths and Hilary Clinton certainly isn't evil incarnate but in fairness I'm not particularly convinced support for universal healthcare, especially as politicians, is a particularly strong argument against it. It's not as if there isn't the potential for personal gain for politicians in supporting a policy which, in theory at least, should appeal to significant numbers of voters regardless of whether it helps people or not.

You could probably argue, for example, Stalin campaigned consistently over a period of decades, by various means and across national boundaries to improve the access to healthcare for millions of people (amongst other things). There's probably a reasonably sound argument to be made he was a psychopath though.

[MerenthaClone]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Secondly, I'm pretty convinced that most Trump supporters know that Trump is a narcissist, a conman, a buffoon and a self serving liar. He is far from the ideal candidate. But he serves the purpose of championing the causes that these voters care about, so they would vote for Ronald Macdonald, as long as it got conservative judges elected to the Supreme Court next year, protected their 2nd amendment rights, and led to some attempt to curb illegal immigration.

There is one candidate in this election who has promised to stop citizens at minimal to no pretext and physically take away their guns.  Literally one.  Can you guess who it is?

The other, sadly, has backed the shitty "no fly list = no buying guns" policy, but so has her opponent.  The NRA supports Trump because the NRA is in the business of selling guns to white people.  No more, no less, and it needs racist fearmongering to do that.

[Mudguard]

Just now, Shryke said:

Again, stop being a rube. The only reason to even respond there is to defend Trump. He literally posted to tell us that Trump's views are "not a ridiculous notion". And to say "Well, he won't enforce a breeding program, so calm down".

Are you being deliberately obtuse?  FNR just clarified in the post above yours his position, which unsurprisingly, is not at all what you assert.

[OldGimletEye]

I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has found the 2nd Amendment was incorporated through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause a few years ago. No matter who sits the bench, I highly doubt it will reverse itself on that.

 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

12 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I think it's fairly unlikely the Clintons are psychopaths and Hilary Clinton certainly isn't evil incarnate but in fairness I'm not particularly convinced support for universal healthcare, especially as politicians, is a particularly strong argument against it. It's not as if there isn't the potential for personal gain for politicians in supporting a policy which, in theory at least, should appeal to significant numbers of voters regardless of whether it helps people or not.

You could probably argue, for example, Stalin campaigned consistently over a period of decades, by various means and across national boundaries to improve the access the healthcare for millions of people (amongst other things). There's probably a reasonably sound argument to be made he was a psychopath though.

If you accept the view that many CEO's have psychopathic traits then I don't see how a ruthless politician like Hillary Clinton does not meet a lot of the criteria to qualify for that category too. In any case, I am actually surprised that some genuinely believe she is honest about her beliefs, rather than just claiming whatever is necessary in order to derive political benefit from it. Guess people believe what they want to believe.

As for Trump. I'm sure he believes that he is very intelligent. I personally don't agree. I think he has bullied and bamboozled his way through life, with a healthy head start thanks to his dad's money. And I really wish the Republicans had a true conservative, values based candidate who could pull the votes needed to win an election in the current political climate. I still don't understand why they don't, especially after 8 years of Obama.

But for now, Trump is all there is, sadly. And I have never believed that he could do it. His current standing in the polls is astounding to me. But if he pulls through, well, then at least disaster is staved off for another 4 years. And perhaps longer, given the Supreme Court nominations that will likely endure long after his presidency.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

If you accept the view that many CEO's have psychopathic traits then I don't see how a ruthless politician like Hillary Clinton does not meet a lot of the criteria to qualify for that category too. In any case, I am actually surprised that some geniunely believe she is honest about her beliefs, rather than just claiming whatever is necessary in order to derive political benefit from it. Guess people believe what they want to believe.

For years, conservatives made similar claims about LBJ.

Now according to Robert Caro, who has spent a good portion of his adult life writing about LBJ, LBJ was often an opportunist and and a deeply flawed man. But, Caro also states that compassion for others was a key motivator in LBJ's life, as flawed as he was.

It's possible to believe that Hillary has her flaws but is honest about her beliefs.

[Kalbear]

I also think that there are certain things that Clinton is fairly pragmatic and loose about - free trade, some race relation stuff, some economic policy and probably gay rights - and things that she is 100% committed to always, such as social justice, women's rights, and taking action. I also think that she is much more committed to process than specific policies. She desires producing greater good for more people, and she isn't wedded to a specific way to do it and would rather instead ask people what their problems are, find smart people who know how to solve said problems and then fight to solve those problems that way. 

This often gets characterized by her opponents as her being wishy-washy, but that's not particularly accurate. Instead, what you need to recognize is what her goals are and separate those goals from the process of achieving them. The best example of this I can give is universal healthcare - where she was a strong proponent until she saw what obstacles were in her way. She is still very much in favor of UHC, but she recognizes that it's better to get something than nothing. Her goals haven't changed, but her way of achieving value towards that goal has.

[Jace, Extat]

8 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

DG,

What I can't wrap my brain around is that there are people who admire Trump.  Who find his antics "refreshing"?  People in my own family.  I've disliked Trump for decades.  His demeanor is like fingernails down a chalkboard.

Some people just want to believe that deep down, everyone is as ugly as they are.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Some people just want to believe that deep down, everyone is as ugly as they are.

 I'm not sure that covers the entire spectrum. Love him or hate him, the guy is entertaining. Every once in a blue moon, I actually enjoy listening to say a Rush Limbaugh, or watching Bill O'Reilly, because they make me laugh. The level of vitriol and self-importance can be almost fascinating. I mean honestly, despite the fact that I could never support him, I think I'd rather attend a Trump rally over a Hillary rally at this point. I just think it'd be more interesting.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

Do you actually know much about genetics, heritable traits, and inheritance patterns?

But, even taken at face value, Trump's own ideology is ruined by his actions. His wives, for instance, were not billionaires themselves until after they married him. In his world, they're not "successful." So he's breeding with unsuccessful women, effectively diluting his bloodline. Trump's own mother was an immigrant, of modest background. Again, a "failure" in Trump's world. So he's not that great either, and he's further diluting his questionable genetic pedigree with his own choices in mates.

Further, we are not debating whether Trump knows how genetics works (SPOILER: he doesn't, and neither do you). We are criticizing his reaction to those less rich than he is. He's saying that people who were not as rich as his father was are morons, on account of their inability to be as rich as his father. In a capitalist system where capital is unevenly distributed, it's impossible to have everyone be as rich as his father. That means that the lack of wealth in these individuals, as a class, is by design, not by merit. But to Trump, he sees these people and families as morons and losers. Basically, he just called your parents morons.

 

But hey, by all means, continue to support him because you see nothing wrong with Trump insulting your parents. That's your call.

Silly, don't know know that greatness only flows genetically from the father. The mother doesn't matter she is merely a vessel for paternal greatness.

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I'm not sure that covers the entire spectrum. Love him or hate him, the guy is entertaining. Every once in a blue moon, I actually enjoy listening to say a Rush Limbaugh, or watching Bill O'Reilly, because they make me laugh. The level of vitriol and self-importance can be almost fascinating. I mean honestly, despite the fact that I could never support him, I think I'd rather attend a Trump rally over a Hillary rally at this point. I just think it'd be more interesting.

This post would be better if it were making fun of the Browns with me in the NFL thread.

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But its not about him, is it. It is about keeping a liberal majority of judges out of the Supreme Court. A generation is at stake here.

 

again, why are you so confident he's going to nominate justices that will be conservative in the way you hope?   

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

38 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I'm not sure that covers the entire spectrum. Love him or hate him, the guy is entertaining. Every once in a blue moon, I actually enjoy listening to say a Rush Limbaugh, or watching Bill O'Reilly, because they make me laugh. The level of vitriol and self-importance can be almost fascinating. I mean honestly, despite the fact that I could never support him, I think I'd rather attend a Trump rally over a Hillary rally at this point. I just think it'd be more interesting.

I don't find him entertaining, at all.  Maybe it's just me but I've never found Trump anything but irritating.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't find him entertaining, at all.  Maybe it's just me but I've never found Trump anything but irritating.

 I don't know, I think it's the way folks react to him that I find most interesting. Like that snippet of his rally I posted earlier where he's telling the crowd how smart they are. I would like to get a close look as to how those folks reacted to that. Like are they truly buying this or is there some sense of "can you believe this bullshit"? 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

10 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

again, why are you so confident he's going to nominate justices that will be conservative in the way you hope?   

That's an interesting thought. I'm pretty sure Trump won't nominate some shady mob lawyer to the Supreme Court and will just put forward whomever Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell ask him to, but with Trump you can never be sure.

On a semi related note, I actually would prefer a slightly more moderate/civil libertarian Supreme Court, and if Kasich or Jeb had won, I'd consider voting Republican for that reason.

[butterbumps!]

24 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

That's an interesting thought. I'm pretty sure Trump won't nominate some shady mob lawyer to the Supreme Court and will just put forward whomever Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell ask him to, but with Trump you can never be sure.

On a semi related note, I actually would prefer a slightly more moderate/civil libertarian Supreme Court, and if Kasich or Jeb had won, I'd consider voting Republican for that reason.

that's interesting. My suspicion is that filling various appointments would be something he'd want to personally oversee, and that his grotesquerie-- rather than establishment figures-- would be giving input.   And given his obsession with besting the law (not to mention some decisions and principles he "admires," like Kelo; I mean, if anyone would go around declaring blight, tearing down that neighborhood and erecting monuments/ golf courses in honor of himself for "public good" it would be him), I'd suspect he'd be very keen to use his power to ensure laws that benefit him directly are upheld.   I see these nominations at best as a gamble (for the conservative mainstream, that is).

[Horza]

11 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

that's interesting. My suspicion is that filling various appointments would be something he'd want to personally oversee, and that his grotesquerie-- rather than establishment figures-- would be giving input.   And given his obsession with besting the law (not to mention some decisions and principles he "admires," like Kelo; I mean, if anyone would go around declaring blight, tearing down that neighborhood and erecting monuments/ golf courses in honor of himself for "public good" it would be him), I'd suspect he'd be very keen to use his power to ensure laws that benefit him directly are upheld.   I see these nominations at best as a gamble.

This is what I'd expect. To the extent that he would have any need to reward people it'd be his team that would get the first pick. I am sure there are people in the Republican establishment who think they have an arrangement with him and that their support in this cycle is a quid pro quo to be repayed in office, and such people (still!) have no idea who they're dealing with.

[Kalbear]

For the first time in its history USA today steps into the endorsement arena...and says vote for anyone but Trump.

[Mudguard]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

again, why are you so confident he's going to nominate justices that will be conservative in the way you hope?   

Trump won't be able to get his personal stooges into the Supreme Court.  He could certainly nominate them, but Congress would reject these nominations.  Bush essentially tried to do this when he nominated Harriet Miers, and her nomination was strongly opposed by his own party.

Trump has released a few lists of potential Supreme Court justice nominations, and most conservatives appear satisfied with latest lists.  If Trump somehow gets elected, if he wants to be re-elected, he's going to have to nominate conservative justices.  I think it's more likely than not that he'd nominate people from these lists.  I find it hard to believe that he's going to nominate liberal justices.  I think he might try nominating his own stooges, but I think he'd fail to get them on the Court.

If the nomination of conservative SC justices is the number one priority for a voter and that voter can look past all Trump's many faults, then it probably makes sense for that voter to vote Trump.  Certainly, Clinton is not going to nominate a conservative justice.  Johnson might nominate conservative justices (I don't really know), but as posters on this board have argued over and over, a vote for Johnson, who has no chance to win, would actually help that voter's least favored candidate, Clinton, win.  Therefore, if this single issue overrides all other concerns for that voter, then it would be rational to vote for Trump.