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

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 hours ago, Frog Eater said:

How can we get one of the people who have been approved to be present to ask Donald Trump "Can you please tell me how a bill becomes a law"? I just want to hear him answer the question. I imagine it involves "I make the best laws" in his answer. 

Funny you say that. At my family's Rosh Hashanah dinner we were joking around about which Civics 101 questions we'd like to ask him to simultaneously expose how uninformed he is and enrage him so he self destructs.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Funny you say that. At my family's Rosh Hashanah dinner we were joking around about which Civics 101 questions we'd like to ask him to simultaneously expose how uninformed he is and enrage him so he self destructs.

 

 Larrytheimp:. Fuck this quote shit.

Q: Trump, what are the three branches of government outlined in the Constitution?

Trump:. The thing is, and you know this, the branches have been strong.  Roots are strong too but the branches have been weak lately.  Our President, he's a weak branch.  You tell me.  Secretary Clinton, she's also been known to be involved.

I'm going to get the best people on the branches.  It's going to be great.  You won't believe the branches I'm talking .

 

 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

I want to ask him if he supports the Geneva Convention, and why or why not?

Wanna bet he thinks it is a bad trade deal, or in general, bad for America?

[DireWolfSpirit]

^^^Okay now that's pretty funny right there, goodstuff @larrytheimp

And oh my goodness did I read Dr. Peppers post correctly, we have 22 service members a day committing suicide now? If that is so its the collective failure of society as a whole, we should measure that and take a collective look in the mirror imo.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

I want to ask him if he supports the Geneva Convention, and why or why not?

Wanna bet he thinks it is a bad trade deal, or in general, bad for America?

If he does know what it is, I'm afraid of the answer.  I think I know what it would be, and that terrifies me on a moral and ethical level.

[Ice Queen]

14 hours ago, Mexal said:

Yea, but it was based on a quote taken out of context.

 

My dad has suffered from PTSD for nearly 50 years after spending 3 years in the hellhole that was Vietnam and Cambodia. His statements were offensive and tone deaf. 

Taken out of context? I don't think so. How can anyone defend this ass?

[BloodRider]

22 hours ago, SerPaladin said:

"Not terrible" is not exactly the same as OK. Using Obamacare as an example... it could absolutely be done better. But any rational proposal from, say, a house democrat, to improve it would be seen by fellow democrats as a betrayal, 

I really doubt that.  Many people on the left are chomping at the bit to tweak the bill to make it better.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

I really doubt that.  Many people on the left are chomping at the bit to tweak the bill to make it better.

Personally, I wish they'd just adopt single payer and have done.  Then we can all enjoy nice long waits for common medical procedures and not have the nightmare of seeing what our insurance will cost each year and whether our employers will be able to afford to continue to offer it

[BloodRider]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Personally, I wish they'd just adopt single payer and have done.  Then we can all enjoy nice long waits for common medical procedures and not have the nightmare of seeing what our insurance will cost each year and whether our employers will be able to afford to continue to offer it

Having lived under multiple different combos, single payor model (as done in the UK) is not that bad as far as wait times go.  It's not GREAT, but its not much worse that the wait times here under our shitty model.  From a patient perspective, the Aus model seemed to work best

[sologdin]

by contrast with unconstitutional obamacare and commie single payer, i assume the trump health care plan is rooted in unassailable second amendment remedies, as per the walking dead, wherein NRA members can shoot sick persons on sight?

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, BloodRider said:

I really doubt that.  Many people on the left are chomping at the bit to tweak the bill to make it better.

Remember back in the good old days when conservatives went around telling everyone the US had the "best" healthcare system in the world. You know, the one that cost the US about 17% of its GDP as opposed to an average of about 11% or so in Europe and there is little evidence that the US healthcare system does any better?

I think a lot on the left understand the system is still too expensive and some things need to be done to drive down cost.

[BloodRider]

18 hours ago, SkynJay said:

When discussing the state of country music I often bring up an old song called 'You Never Even Called Me by my Name.'  In it the singer brings up, obviously satirically, that his song cant be a perfect country song without certain elements (such as trucks, prison, etc).  My contention is that there is a whole generation of country stars who missed the joke and took it all seriously; they actually think their songs must mention beer, trucks, and loose women and have trashed the genre with their obliviousness.

HA - Nice analogy.

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, sologdin said:

by contrast with unconstitutional obamacare and commie single payer, i assume the trump health care plan is rooted in unassailable second amendment remedies, as per the walking dead, wherein NRA members can shoot sick persons on sight?

LOL.

Given Trump's apparent lack of policy knowledge on other matters, I'd expect "Trumpcare" to be about squared away as a soup sandwich.

[Kalbear]

Gary Johnson said that his lack of knowledge about other countries is an asset, because it means he won't be able to declare war on them.

For the record this is now two of the 4 candidates running who believe that ignorance is a legitimately important and good asset when leading the most powerful nation on the planet, and a third who isn't quite sure about whether vaccines cause autism.

[Kalbear]

Also, in response to finding out that Trump will be live-tweeting the debate:

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Gary Johnson said that his lack of knowledge about other countries is an asset, because it means he won't be able to declare war on them.

For the record this is now two of the 4 candidates running who believe that ignorance is a legitimately important and good asset when leading the most powerful nation on the planet, and a third who isn't quite sure about whether vaccines cause autism.

 I'm thinking we should be thankful that there doesn't appear to be a strong, viable 3rd party candidate this election. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I'm thinking we should be thankful that there doesn't appear to be a strong, viable 3rd party candidate this election. 

Maybe? 

My wife continues to assert that the worst thing about this election is not Trump, but that so many people happily and excitedly are in favor of Trump. I think that another party - one that is populist without being racist, one that is a bit less interventionist in military and economics, and one that supports in general freedoms - would do really well, but it's hard to say if that's a pipe dream because so much of American views are completely bullshit. I'm not talking about things I find morally reprehensible - I'm meaning people believe things that are legitimately, factually incorrect and virtually the opposite of the truth. 

And education helps that some, but only some. My suspicion is that the reason people latch on so vigorously to these kind of beliefs is that they want something to hold on to that makes sense of why life seems to be so disappointing and lame, and conspiracies are one way to go. Making people happier would help. But how do you make more people happy when the thing that they say would make them happiest is to see anyone not like them die in fires?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Maybe? 

My wife continues to assert that the worst thing about this election is not Trump, but that so many people happily and excitedly are in favor of Trump. I think that another party - one that is populist without being racist, one that is a bit less interventionist in military and economics, and one that supports in general freedoms - would do really well, but it's hard to say if that's a pipe dream because so much of American views are completely bullshit. I'm not talking about things I find morally reprehensible - I'm meaning people believe things that are legitimately, factually incorrect and virtually the opposite of the truth. 

And education helps that some, but only some. My suspicion is that the reason people latch on so vigorously to these kind of beliefs is that they want something to hold on to that makes sense of why life seems to be so disappointing and lame, and conspiracies are one way to go. Making people happier would help. But how do you make more people happy when the thing that they say would make them happiest is to see anyone not like them die in fires?

 Your wife's point kind of underlines mine, I think. Given that so much of Trump's support seems to be hardline, I'm guessing that a strong 3rd party candidate would be likely to draw more voters away from Hillary than from Trump.

[butterbumps!]

6 hours ago, SerPaladin said:

I don't necessarily believe that they are equally unpalatable, his character is less palatable. But I am starting from a position on the grid as a pragmatic republican with some libertarian ideals. I'm not starting from some pure neutral position.

I yelled at my local fellow republicans for endorsing Trump preceding the primary, we live proximate to Atlantic City, and I was astounded that they endorsed him over Kasich. It did take three rounds of voting. I got yelled at a lot louder in return, afterward, to the point that I'm effectively ostracized and "out of politics", though I am finishing up a term as an elected official (as planned, I've had three terms). They are trying to force another dissenter out of office, taking very hard shots at him, admittedly he is a bit higher profile than I am. I've got minor anxiety that "loyalty oaths" are on the horizon, the Trump fans are that rabid, and in the back of my mind I'm glad my term ends December 31 and Trump's wouldn't start until late January. I've got a lot of good reasons not to support Trump that are not the experience of the typical American.

The problem is that with Hillary, I'm forced to not just concede, but to endorse, a 100% chance that the country moves away from what my preferred vision is. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, the only other time I voted D in a presidential election, because his "triangulation" was a lot closer to my vision than Bob Dole's greatest generation BS.

There is a significant amount of weight on one side of the scale that tips me toward voting "R" with all else being equal. AND there is a significant amount of weight on that same side that just plain doesn't like Hillary's policies and does not find her trustworthy. And with all those things on the scale, Trump's badness has managed to have me leaning toward voting for Hillary, a candidate that I deeply disagree with politically and do not like personally.

I just want to put out there that I think your civic engagement is pretty cool-- that even though none of the choices are really speaking to you, you're still inclined to vote.

And yea, I really feel for what you're describing.  I've pondered what this would be like for me from the opposite end-- where Trump became the Dem nominee, and was competing against a Republican.   Depending on how far right you lean, and level of antipathy toward Clinton, it could feel as torturous as a Trump vs. Pence/ Cheney/ Cruz choice would to me.  

It sounds like you lean right mainly on fiscal/ governance issues, aren't particularly socially conservative, and that you're not terribly unhappy with the status quo, only that you wish it might veer further right sooner than later.  That, combined with Hillary's mild moderate-left agenda, the scenario is probably more analogous to what a choice between Trump and a fairly mild moderate-right candidate would be like for me.   While the former scenario is utterly terrifying, I wouldn't hesitate to elect a Bush/ Rubio/ Kasich over Trump if that was the situation.  But I'd feel exactly like you describe-- that beyond simply not being ideal candidates, there's just very little about either-- including the sane one-- that reflects how I want the country to evolve. 

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Personally, I wish they'd just adopt single payer and have done.  Then we can all enjoy nice long waits for common medical procedures and not have the nightmare of seeing what our insurance will cost each year and whether our employers will be able to afford to continue to offer it

In all single payer systems you still have the option to take out insurance and get medical care on demand, as long as yhe insurance company doesn't find a way to deny it. Or you can just pay up front. I sat on the public waiting list for 3 months for my gallbladder op in the middle of the swine flu pandemic, and after 3 months the hospital admin said they couldn't put a time frame on it. So as an uninsured person I forked out the $10K needed to get the op done privately. I still came out ahead compared to health insurance because I would have paid more in insurance premiums in the prior years. You still have a haves and have-nots system, but at least with single payer the have-nots are guaranteed the healthcare, eventually.