@PR,BVW - I don't think I ever said there was a 'silver lining' anywhere, Packrat. You're misreading me. And I don't think either of you can KNOW what Trump would do as President on most of these issues for which you seem to have an inordinate level of certitude, simply because he IS so impulsive and narcissistic, that he hasn't even thought them through yet. I am completely in disagreement with you about the SCOTUS appointments anyway. We weathered Scalia just fine, and Trump is unlikely to appoint anyone nearly as reactionary as he was. Trump is likely to do as he usually does in business, and find some experts, legal experts not Christian Taliban, then vet the recommended personnel. So what?
Besides, I am happy with the Second Amendment just as it sits, in contradistinction to the both of you. And I don't agree with your assessment of Clinton as having less potential to damage our nation. In fact, with the direction that our government is taking in surveillance and opaque monitoring of the average citizen, I am more fearful of someone who is organized, covert, and in the pocket of the corporatists. While the nationalistic fervor that Trump uses to whip up his base echoes bald fascism as you say, it is the globalist policies of the last forty years -for which Clinton is in no small part responsible- which even allow them purchase in the mind of the US electorate to begin with. So don't act like Clinton is any better. Failure to create a fair social contract will cause people to do awful things. And nobody has fixed the international banking system that is causing all this to begin with. Clinton just glad-hands her way through that crowd, hoping to suck up and get their approval. The chickens, as they say, are coming home to roost.
No, I thoroughly and entirely reject both of your conclusions here. None of us in this comment thread can 'stop an impulsive, narcissistic, know-nothing fascist' from becoming president.
While I appreciate your sense of alarm, I think it is unrealistic to think that it matters one way or another what you do here and now. No moderating force can take the simmering anger out of the largest part of an ignored middle America which allows Trump to exists. That is way too long in the making for a few happy words here to have any effect whatsoever.
I remain just as opposed to Clinton as I am to Trump. And I refuse to endorse either.
The Democrats shouldn't have gamed the system to put Clinton at the head of the column. They should have let Sanders do what he was supposed to do, and start the process of slowly fixing all the damage that has been done to the middle class over that last few decades.
Instead, Clinton is going to lose, and we will get to see whether or not the shibboleth of all your accumulated fears comes to pass.
This isn't a vote about "the lesser of two evils," for god's sake. It's about stopping an impulsive, narcissistic, know-nothing,neo-fascist from being president of your country. The level of damage that could be done by one of these candidates far outweighs the other. Eyes on the prize, people. Don't be a precious, entitled idiot.
"Let's be clear about the moral imperative, because you're trying to cloud it."
No, I'm not trying to cloud it, I'm clarifying it. Vote for whomever your conscience dictates. If that means Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, go for it. Just know that if Trump wins, no matter what his personal attitude toward certain social issues, it will mean the sclerotic heart of social conservatism gets a defibrillator implant with the Court appointments. Trump will owe the religious nuts and there is no reason to believe he won't pay off. Because while you're probably right that he doesn't care about gay marriage.....the upshot is, he doesn't care about gay marriage. Or abortion rights. Or voting rights. Or much of anything else besides self-aggrandizement.
The idea that the election of Trump will have "silver lining" of destroying the corrupt 2 party system is ludicrous. It will only strengthen the GOP and give that party completely over to white nationalism.
@PR - They have that plank for the same reason that Clinton has the plank about the minimum wage. To satisfy a certain constituency within the party, not because the standard bearer believes in it. Both Clinton and Trump are placating their base. They aren't doing any of this stuff because they believe in it. From what I've seen, Trump doesn't care one whit about that social crap. He's from NYC. All he wants, is a chance to adjust policy to make lots of money, and to do that, he's going to set things up to benefit himself and people like him.
Now about that swing state thing. Let's be clear about the moral imperative, because you're trying to cloud it. If you vote your conscience, as is your constitutional duty, and vote for a Libertarian or a Green, you are NOT voting for Trump. You are still voting for who you vote for.
If there are more other people in your state who want Trump than Clinton, then it is THOSE PEOPLE who are voting for Trump. You are not responsible for their vote. If that's their conscience, then that is how our system is designed to record their vote.
My argument, is that if more people joined other parties, we will eventually get to a more representative form of government. So my counter argument to yours, is that holding your nose and voting for 'the lesser of two evils' assures that the evils get worse and worse.
It's time to stop that.
Oak, then why do they still have the party plank that pledges to overturn gay marriage?
"..As for OakTree's delusion that Trump won't appoint social conservatives to SCOTUS -- he has done nothing but pander to religious conservatives, and it is illogical to believe he will change that if elected president..."
Nothing but pander to social conservatives? I beg to differ:
This is the definition of delusion:
de·lu·sion - dəˈlo͞oZHən/
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
synonyms: misapprehension, misconception, misunderstanding, mistake, error, misinterpretation, misconstruction, misbelief
The reality is, Theil demonstrates a shift in the importance of the social conservative agenda in the Republican Party. So perhaps if you want to use pejorative language, you are the one who is 'delusional'. Because Theil is our reality.
I think it's fairly obvious that younger conservatives don't care about the dog-whistle social issues that dominated most of your adult life. Log Cabin Republicans have more and more influence in the party. And for fiscal conservatives, the Libertarian Party is an alternative, here and now, with staying power.
"And Social conservatism is dying anyway. Trump has no dog in that fight. He won't be inclined to put an ideologue on the bench. So that's a false flag designed to stir people up who are nominally social liberals, and scare them into voting for Clinton."
I agree with your first sentence here, but have to respectfully disagree with the rest of it. Yes, social conservatism is dying, but they can do an enormous amount of damage on their way to the morgue. It's not a false flag to suggest making sure the SCOTUS trends liberal for the next 20 years is unimportant. Because if that douchebag Trump wins, he most certainly WILL put ideologues on the bench, why would he not? What would stop him? A debt to liberals who didn't support him and made fun of him? If it's one thing we know about that jackass coward, it's that he never forgets a slight. And he would look to screw liberals any chance he got as POTUS. What better way than appointing another Clarence Thomas clone to overturn gay marriage and abortion rights?
In Tennessee, it doesn't matter, but in a swing state, if you vote against Clinton, you're voting against gay rights, against abortion rights, and for theocracy. Just be honest with yourself about it.
The difference with Perot, and the Libertarians and the Greens, is that the Reform Party began and ended with him. It had no staying power. For the last few election cycles, more and more people are voting Libertarian and Green, though. They are movements, not just one guy and his charisma.
In 2012, Libertarians won 30 state and local elections, and dozens of people are currently serving under that designation. The Green party has elected at least four state representatives that I know of, in California, Maine, and Arkansas, where the parties are very active.
It's time to back away from the eternal and unending argument over whether Chevy or Ford is better. There are other electoral vehicles that serve our needs better.
CL, at that point in time, I would have voted for George Bush. I've probably made more reversals in my life than most people.
Just curious, at that point in time, who other than Perot, would you have voted for?
I learned my lesson about 3rd party candidates when I voted for Ross Perot. I have repeated enough mistakes in life without repeating that one.
If you are a Hillary supporter and you live in TN, you might as well stay at home anyway, because your vote doesn't matter. The same for a republican in California, your vote doesn't matter either.
Jeff, aside from his military record, the first instance was when McCain stood up to BJU, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell. Another instance was his opposition to Republicans who endorse torture.
As for OakTree's delusion that Trump won't appoint social conservatives to SCOTUS -- he has done nothing but pander to religious conservatives, and it is illogical to believe he will change that if elected president. Who is his VP choice?
It is unpleasant, but Hillary has been positioned as the only sane choice. I will never send another dime to the Human Rights Campaign because they endorsed her early, but she is now the only option for LGBT voters who want to maintain progress made thus far.
Yep. Just tired of the 'lesser of two evils' argument. Neither Clinton nor Trump is acceptable, so let's stop fooling ourselves that Clinton is 'better' because she nominally is a Democrat, and they historically have looked out for the little guy. That history is meaningless to Clinton. She's got more bankster connections than Trump. She doesn't have any plans to fix the downward slide of the working and middle class, either. Any ideas she mouths in that direction are meaningless platitudes, articulated in order to get closer to power.
So backing her is pointless.
Sooner or later, America has to break out of the two party system, and embrace a future where people actually vote for what they believe in. This election cycle is where that is going to happen. Stop letting yourself get sold a bill of goods by both major parties, who throw out the red meat of social issues to divide us, thereby allowing a creeping corporatist state to evolve, and instead choose a smaller party to grow into an engine that actually does our will.
We also need to devolve the 'winner takes all' style of government we have now, into a more parliamentary system, which takes into account more than two points of view. Two is always oppositional and inclined to stalemate. Three or more is more stable, and allows work to actually get done.
It's time to do it now. If anyone wanted to ever illustrate why that's true, they couldn't have created a better natural experiment to do so.
Bruno, what is it about McCain that won your admiration? Was it when he threw his support behind Bush, even though Bush beat him in South Carolina with a whisper campaign about his illegitimate black baby? Or was it when McCain chose Sarah Palin to be one chicken bone in the throat, one slip in the bathtub away from the presidency?
@oak, you okay?
Justin looks good in that shade.
Lipstick, meet Pig.
By the way, if you like hyperlinks, 68% of voters think Clinton is 'untrustworthy', according to the latest polls. Over the last six months, every successive poll has shown more and more of the electorate thinks she can't be trusted:
If this many people think that she is damaged goods, then supporting her makes no sense at all. Vote your conscience, and vote for someone who actually embraces your values.
Tennessee is red no matter what you do.
Clinton is unable to live on a $450,000 a year pension. And we want her in control of fiscal policy?
By Flyer Staff
download this issue
click here to see more »