U.S. Elections: Is Keeping The SC Worth Risking A Dictatorship?

[The guy from the Vale]

Clinton's experience is in doubt? Seriously?

 

Moreover, yes, when faced with the choice between two candidates, one of whom has questions with regards to their reputation and behavior while the other lacks any good reputation or behavior, I'd tend to go with the former unless there were good reasons to take the other candidate. But the other candidate also has no experience versus lots for the questionable candidate. So really, there is absolutely no reason to employ the inexperienced, provably corrupt, obviously bigoted candidate over the experienced, possibly corrupt and previously bigoted candidate. It's just no contest.

[mormont]

2 minutes ago, the Greenleif Stark said:

First of all, learn to read, I never said vote for Trump.  I was asked why I thought Trump was the lesser of two evils.  So because of a persons reputation, behavior and lack of experience we should just vote for the other person.....who has questions surrounding her reputation, behavior and her experience?  The mind absolutely boggles.

Well, if you're being asked which of two people is the lesser of two evils, it's entirely reasonable to compare them and pick the one that has fewer questions.

By any measure, that's Clinton. Whatever you think of her reputation, behaviour and experience, Trump's shown that he is worse on every count. He has no experience. His reputation is a national and international joke. And his behaviour would be unacceptable in a twelve-year-old.

[The guy from the Vale]

8 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

Well, Gary Johnson has completely immolated, so I don't have that fig leaf to hide behind anymore. I was really enjoying the principled cop-out.

Do I vote for the vain striving politico who has a 100% chance of reducing my take home pay, or do I vote for the vain fragile narcissist who has (in my estimation) a 25% chance of starting a war my young teenage sons might have to fight in?

I believe that the amount of government regulation is about right currently, and the amount of taxes I currently pay is also somewhere in the neighborhood of fair (not wealthy, but a household with two professional wage earners). I don't think Obamacare was a big success or a massive failure, just another monolithic government program that inefficiently helps people, many of whom genuinely needed it. I think the economy could be growing faster, and that training/ refocusing is a good approach to joblessness (though encouraging people to move to where the jobs are would be among the most effective approaches).

Most of the rest just doesn't move the needle for me. Second Amendment, prayer in schools, abortion, the other "Supreme Court" arguments, no sale.

Since tax increases depend on Congress far more than foreign policy, and with the House safely Republican no matter what, I suggest going with the sound foreign policy choice.

[Shryke]

15 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

Well, Gary Johnson has completely immolated, so I don't have that fig leaf to hide behind anymore. I was really enjoying the principled cop-out.

Do I vote for the vain striving politico who has a 100% chance of reducing my take home pay, or do I vote for the vain fragile narcissist who has (in my estimation) a 25% chance of starting a war my young teenage sons might have to fight in?

I believe that the amount of government regulation is about right currently, and the amount of taxes I currently pay is also somewhere in the neighborhood of fair (not wealthy, but a household with two professional wage earners). I don't think Obamacare was a big success or a massive failure, just another monolithic government program that inefficiently helps people, many of whom genuinely needed it. I think the economy could be growing faster, and that training/ refocusing is a good approach to joblessness (though encouraging people to move to where the jobs are would be among the most effective approaches).

Most of the rest just doesn't move the needle for me. Second Amendment, prayer in schools, abortion, the other "Supreme Court" arguments, no sale.

Clinton is literally running on being Obama's 3rd term so if you think stuff is pretty ok right now, I mean, she's right there.

[the Greenleif Stark]

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

Well, if you're being asked which of two people is the lesser of two evils, it's entirely reasonable to compare them and pick the one that has fewer questions.

By any measure, that's Clinton. Whatever you think of her reputation, behaviour and experience, Trump's shown that he is worse on every count. He has no experience. His reputation is a national and international joke. And his behaviour would be unacceptable in a twelve-year-old.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, I however, disagree.  Like I said before, we the people(Americans) have to decide between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, that's terrible and scary at the same time and why I will not be voting.  However, if asked whom I think is the lesser of two evils, I pick The Giant Douche(Trump) all day.....that in no way actually means I'm voting for him, support him or want him to win, in a perfect world the entire voting population of America would not vote in November  

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, the Greenleif Stark said:

Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich...........the Turd Sandwich is much more dangerous in my opinion, not that I support the Giant Douche either, probably won't even vote since I have to choose between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche 

It's these kind of references that really highlight how well you've thought this out.

God knows South Park's take on Presidential elections was proven so accurate throughout the early 2000s.

[TerraPrime]

6 minutes ago, the Greenleif Stark said:

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, I however, disagree.  Like I said before, we the people(Americans) have to decide between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, that's terrible and scary at the same time and why I will not be voting.  However, if asked whom I think is the lesser of two evils, I pick The Giant Douche(Trump) all day.....that in no way actually means I'm voting for him, support him or want him to win, in a perfect world the entire voting population of America would not vote in November  

 

Try to graduate from South Park to at least Jon Oliver. Here, have some raisins.

 

 

[the Greenleif Stark]

3 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

 

Try to graduate from South Park to at least Jon Oliver. Here, have some raisins.

 

 

I'm good, thank you though but I'll stick with South Park

[MerenthaClone]

2 hours ago, the Greenleif Stark said:

Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich...........the Turd Sandwich is much more dangerous in my opinion, not that I support the Giant Douche either, probably won't even vote since I have to choose between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche 

Your political philosophy is stolen from a comedy cartoon for children. Its worthless, shortsighted, and literally puerile.  

 

e:  And when I need surgery, you can bet I'm not going to go with the experienced surgeon.  No, no, he'd be a career surgeon, and that's just the worst.  

[the Greenleif Stark]

1 minute ago, MerenthaClone said:

Your political philosophy is stolen from a comedy cartoon for children. Its worthless, shortsighted, and literally puerile.  

O so now I've stated my "political philosophy?"   Because I refer to Hillary and Donald as Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche?  That sums up my whole entire "political philosophy?"  Maybe you need to watch more children's cartoons since you can't seem to comprehend that I use Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich to emphasize my displeasure with the political scene in America.....my displeasure with BOTH candidates.

[Ice Queen]

On 10/2/2016 at 9:31 AM, Commodore said:

he released some

and if there was anything damning in others, they would have been leaked

how is what the NYT did (publishing an illegally obtained private record) different than what Gawker did to Hogan?

This is all academic of course, no chance of any prosecution for the leaker or publisher.

That was settled long ago with the Pentagon Papers. Whether the information was gotten legally or illegally is irrelevant. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

6 minutes ago, the Greenleif Stark said:

O so now I've stated my "political philosophy?"   Because I refer to Hillary and Donald as Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche?  That sums up my whole entire "political philosophy?"  Maybe you need to watch more children's cartoons since you can't seem to comprehend that I use Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich to emphasize my displeasure with the political scene in America.....my displeasure with BOTH candidates.

But someone will win in November.  And it will be Trump or Clinton.  So, I understand the nihilistic impulse to rage "a pox on both your houses" and refuse to vote, I do.  But, when the dust settles, which one would you prefer in the Oval Office?  I don't think it's even close, my own self.

[MerenthaClone]

12 minutes ago, the Greenleif Stark said:

O so now I've stated my "political philosophy?"   Because I refer to Hillary and Donald as Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche?  That sums up my whole entire "political philosophy?"  Maybe you need to watch more children's cartoons since you can't seem to comprehend that I use Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich to emphasize my displeasure with the political scene in America.....my displeasure with BOTH candidates.

Yeah, and I'm laughing at you for deciding that because your perfect candidate isn't running, you throw up your hands and declare they're both equally bad because you're too lazy to actually think about your values and evaluate the candidates.  South Park's commentary was compelling when I was 12 and before Parker and Stone decided they wanted to make Cartman their mouthpiece character. 

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, SerPaladin said:

Do I vote for the vain striving politico who has a 100% chance of reducing my take home pay, or do I vote for the vain fragile narcissist who has (in my estimation) a 25% chance of starting a war my young teenage sons might have to fight in?

It's horrifying that, even when the choice is oversimplified this way, that you still seem undecided.

[OldGimletEye]

More on Trump's nonsensical attack on Janet Yellen and the Fed.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-accuses-fed-of-playing-politics-by-kenneth-rogoff-2016-10

I'd hope Trump, being the bestest, most awesomest, businessman ever, would have an understanding of what most central banks are facing right now. I'd hope he would understand the problem of current low inflation expectations around the world. Maybe he really doesn't. Or maybe he does and is just talking shit for the very low information voter.

 

Quote

True, some people still insist that if the Fed doesn’t urgently raise interest rates and rein in the money supply, the US economy will go the way of Zimbabwe (where inflation far exceeded 25,000% in late 2008). But the argument that Fed balance-sheet expansion will translate into high inflation has been colossally wrong for the past six years. Inflation in the US has been consistently below target and, even today, bond yields reflect deep skepticism about whether the Fed has the will or the capacity to sustain price growth at the official 2% target on a consistent basis.

The people making these predictions and being completely wrong about it, we might call "true conservatives".

One of the people claiming it and being wrong about it was David Malpass, a Trump advisor.
 

[mormont]

57 minutes ago, the Greenleif Stark said:

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, I however, disagree.

Well, we're all entitled to our own opinions, of course, but not to our own facts.

That Trump has literally no experience is an indisputable fact. That his reputation, nationally and internationally, is a joke, can also be regarded as a fact - opinion polls will back that up. As for his behaviour, there, you're entitled to your own opinion. You might find Trump's behaviour to be better than Clinton's: most of us would disagree. Clinton, whatever one thinks of her policies, has behaved like an adult.

[Ice Queen]

This just in: NY AG has ordered the Trump Foundation to stop fundraising.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-foundation-ordered-new-york-ag-stop-fundraising-n658651?cid=sm_fb

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office on Monday ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to "immediately cease soliciting contributions" after a report that the charity lacked the proper authorization to seek public donations.

"The Attorney General's office is the sole regulator of charities in New York State, and when evidence of clear misconduct is brought to our attention, we take action," a spokesman for the attorney general's office said in a statement.

The "Notice of Violation" letter obtained by NBC News warned that the charity "shall be deemed a continuing fraud upon the people of New York" unless it provided required paperwork regarding its fundraising activities within the next 15 days.

The move comes after the Washington Post reported last week that the campaign lacked a required state certification that would allow it to request funding from the public. Trump organized a veterans event after cancelling a primary debate appearance in January and collected $1.67 million through a website directing donations to the Trump Foundation.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, the Greenleif Stark said:

Yea, ANY profession is comparable to being a career politician, great insight.......so teachers/doctors/construction workers all have power that allows them a platform to change laws, regulations and directly benefit themselves, all while getting setup for a ridiculous pension and health benefits package at the expense of the tax payers?  That's the dumbest comparison I've read in a while

Except you never said any of these things.  You never brought up anything about potential corruption or conflicts of interest.  You simply said that a careerist in the political profession is evil, full stop.  

In any case, even if you had brought up any of this other stuff, it's clear your argument is about as good as a Diarrhea Calzone.  

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, the Greenleif Stark said:

First of all, learn to read, I never said vote for Trump.  I was asked why I thought Trump was the lesser of two evils.  So because of a persons reputation, behavior and lack of experience we should just vote for the other person.....who has questions surrounding her reputation, behavior and her experience?  The mind absolutely boggles.

These are false equivalences. Clinton had questions, Trump has answers, and they're all very bad.

[James Arryn]

31 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

More on Trump's nonsensical attack on Janet Yellen and the Fed.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-accuses-fed-of-playing-politics-by-kenneth-rogoff-2016-10

I'd hope Trump, being the bestest, most awesomest, businessman ever, would have understanding of what most Central Banks are facing right now. I'd hope he would understand the problem current of low inflation expectaions around the world. Maybe he really doesn't. Or maybe he does and is just talking shit for the very low information voter.

 

The people making these predictions and being completely wrong about it, we might call "true conservatives".

One of the people claiming it and being wrong about it was David Malpass, a Trump advisor.
 

Completely contradicting myself, I think 'voted for Trump'would be an absolute deal-breaker on future relationships, big time. I honestly don't get the thinking. I think people of the future will either be embarrassed or go Iraq/WMD's 'we was lied to!' bullshit rationalization.