Just here to instigate

[hepcat]

What I wouldn't give for another Jimmy Carter right now....

[Defiant]

Though they usually said coordinating with the Clinton Campaign and that's the rub. That's what youth see. That's the echo chamber that's been happening for decades. Everyone around the Clinton campaign are at fault and Clinton's reap the benefits as nothing they did can technically be considered wrong. Just like Trump's tax evasion isn't really tax evasion. Nothing he did was illegal.

Agreed - and that's pretty much par for the course for any campaign. But Clinton avoided directly punching Sanders - that's a rarity in any campaign, and is why his approval ratings remained high.

[LordMortis]

Agreed - and that's pretty much par for the course for any campaign. But Clinton avoided directly punching Sanders - that's a rarity in any campaign, and is why his approval ratings remained high.

That, I can concede.

[Defiant]

What I wouldn't give for another Jimmy Carter right now....

[El Guapo]

By the way, I'm not at all offended that stimpy's thread took off and mine hasn't.

[stessier]

I mean, his was way more effective at staying on topic than yours.

[Defiant]

There are a million disqualifying factors for Trump, but to pick the core ones:

(1) Trump has expressed open contempt for our democratic norms and institutions; if he becomes president we would truly be on the path towards a dictatorship;

(2) Trump has openly embraced bigotry of the worst sort, including (but not limited to) banning members of a major religion from entering the country; his supporters have embraced bigotry of other minority religions as well, from anti-semitism to threats of a "Mormocaust" and the like. Electing Trump is embracing that bigotry;

(3) Trump has openly attacked freedom of the press, and encouraged hatred of the media.

I'd throw in

(4) Trump has suggested that he might turn our backs on our alliances with NATO, South Korea and Japan. Ambiguity over what powers will defend which allies is an amazingly dangerous thing that has a history of leading to war. WW1, WW2, the Gulf War... All were initiated or worsened because of such ambiguity.

[El Guapo]

There are a million disqualifying factors for Trump, but to pick the core ones:

(1) Trump has expressed open contempt for our democratic norms and institutions; if he becomes president we would truly be on the path towards a dictatorship;

(2) Trump has openly embraced bigotry of the worst sort, including (but not limited to) banning members of a major religion from entering the country; his supporters have embraced bigotry of other minority religions as well, from anti-semitism to threats of a "Mormocaust" and the like. Electing Trump is embracing that bigotry;

(3) Trump has openly attacked freedom of the press, and encouraged hatred of the media.

I'd throw in

(4) Trump has suggested that he might turn our backs on our alliances with NATO, South Korea and Japan. Ambiguity over what powers will defend which allies is an amazingly dangerous thing that has a history of leading to war. WW1, WW2, the Gulf War... All were initiated or worsened because of such ambiguity.

That too. Like I said, there's a lot.

[Chrisoc13]

I guess I don't see Hillary as just another politician. I can't remember a candidate with more scandals and more baggage. Yet Democrats keep trying to brush away scandal after scandal but after a while... It just starts to smell bad. I've seen the explanations for every scandal, some are better than others, but mostly the explanations are weak at best. And honestly if you have to explain away numerous scandals you have to start wondering why are we spring such a corrupt politician. She's not just any politician, she exemplifies the corruption of the system.

Trump on the other hand exemplifies the American obsession with social media, trolling, and reality television. Gross.

I actually don't find her policies that distasteful. It's her character that I can't stomach. Either way this president will be DOA and likely out in four years if a reasonable candidate can be put forth by the opposing party finally.

[em2nought]

I'd throw in

(4) Trump has suggested that he might turn our backs on our alliances with NATO, South Korea and Japan. Ambiguity over what powers will defend which allies is an amazingly dangerous thing that has a history of leading to war. WW1, WW2, the Gulf War... All were initiated or worsened because of such ambiguity.

We're not talking about paying for some hungry kids lunch here. Not only should our allies pay their share, I think we haven't been charging them enough. If they don't have the money, maybe they should increase their work week to at least twenty hours per week.

[hepcat]

You do know we're not the billing address for the U.N., right?

[El Guapo]

I guess I don't see Hillary as just another politician. I can't remember a candidate with more scandals and more baggage. Yet Democrats keep trying to brush away scandal after scandal but after a while... It just starts to smell bad. I've seen the explanations for every scandal, some are better than others, but mostly the explanations are weak at best. And honestly if you have to explain away numerous scandals you have to start wondering why are we spring such a corrupt politician. She's not just any politician, she exemplifies the corruption of the system.

But you have to remember that these scandals aren't just springing up from the ether or from nonpartisan sources - a big reason why there are so many is because the GOP has controlled congressional investigations for most of the past 20ish years. They have the ability to take anything that looks even slightly questionable and turn it into a 'scandal' by investigating it to death. Benghazi is the clearest case - that's one example of a scandal that Clinton has had to explain and answer questions about, where there really just isn't anything there. Bear in mind that Clinton has been the expected nominee ever since she left the State Department, so she's been a clear target for the past several years (and one of the prominent Republicans involved essentially admitted that the core point was to get dirt on Clinton).

Not that there's nothing to question about the Clintons, but when you actually dig into the scandals (which I recommend) you tend to find that there's a lot less than you would expect.

[El Guapo]

ChrisSoc, you might also be interested in the conservative case for Hillary Clinton by David Frum (who as you may know is a widely respected independent minded conservative).

[ImLawBoy]

I guess I don't see Hillary as just another politician. I can't remember a candidate with more scandals and more baggage. Yet Democrats keep trying to brush away scandal after scandal but after a while... It just starts to smell bad. I've seen the explanations for every scandal, some are better than others, but mostly the explanations are weak at best. And honestly if you have to explain away numerous scandals you have to start wondering why are we spring such a corrupt politician. She's not just any politician, she exemplifies the corruption of the system.

Trump on the other hand exemplifies the American obsession with social media, trolling, and reality television. Gross.

I actually don't find her policies that distasteful. It's her character that I can't stomach. Either way this president will be DOA and likely out in four years if a reasonable candidate can be put forth by the opposing party finally.

Coming at this as a third party voter myself, where I'm disagreeing with you is what appears to be making Hillary's sins equivalent to Trump's. Maybe that's not your intent, but that's how I'm reading it. Hillary is flawed, but she's orders of magnitude better than Trump.

[The Meal]

Even on this board, most of the liberals are quasi holding their nose or are just cynical realists. What we refuse to give credence to is the false equivalence of the two candidates. One is a qualified political leader that is grossly hampered by real and imagined character flaws. The other is an unqualified demagogue reality TV host strapping himself to fear and disassisfactio .

[Smoove_B]

Coming at this as a third party voter myself, where I'm disagreeing with you is what appears to be making Hillary's sins equivalent to Trump's. Maybe that's not your intent, but that's how I'm reading it. Hillary is flawed, but she's orders of magnitude better than Trump.

Yup. Hillary is not a good choice, however a disillusioned cynical voter could at least take solace in the fact that she's demonstrably qualified to take the position. The fact Trump's name is on a ballot near hers doesn't magically make him qualified to be PotUS in any capacity. I'm still astounded that we're here, and that a significant number of people (and the GOP) believe he's a reasonable alternative to Clinton.

[RunningMn9]

Yet Democrats keep trying to brush away scandal after scandal but after a while... It just starts to smell bad.

To be fair, that's why Republicans keep inventing "scandal" after "scandal".

[LordMortis]

I'm still astounded that we're here, and that a significant number of people (and the GOP) believe he's a reasonable alternative to Clinton.

[Paranoia!]Fear and ignorance. Ignorance and fear[/Paranoia!]

[YellowKing]

From a CNN article about recent battleground polls:

Despite those advantages on "presidential" attributes, Clinton continues to be dogged by questions about her honesty, and lags well behind Trump on honesty and trustworthiness in each of these four states.

How the FUCK does Clinton lag behind Trump on honesty and trustworthiness? HOW? Unless you have completely had your head buried under a rock for the last year, HOW? The guy is the textbook definition of a pathological liar.

[Smoove_B]

How the FUCK does Clinton lag behind Trump on honesty and trustworthiness?

Because Clinton is a lifetime politician with 30+ years of public records and events for people to examine. The Donald is but a humble businessman and his practices as someone that owns and operates a business don't reflect in any capacity on his newfound ability to govern.

[hepcat]

his supporters have embraced bigotry of other minority religions as well, from anti-semitism to threats of a "Mormocaust" and the like. Electing Trump is embracing that bigotry;

Case in point.

[GreenGoo]

No one here has lionized Hillary. The majority of her 'supporters' are swallowing the best of the choices. Trump is the definition of 'loose cannon'. He may not be controllable, but hs sre as shit is manipulable.

I'm of the opinion that she is not nearly as bad as she is made out to be. I know others on the board like Clinton. So while lionizing might be extreme, she certainly has active supporters even here.

I actually think she's a good politician and a great administrator.

edit: this was already addressed by others.

[YellowKing]

Because Clinton is a lifetime politician with 30+ years of public records and events for people to examine. The Donald is but a humble businessman and his practices as someone that owns and operates a business don't reflect in any capacity on his newfound ability to govern.

Actually a little further down, CNN answered my question with an opinion piece.

The working theory is that Trump isn't a liar insomuch as he is a bullshitter. A liar can be contradicted with facts. A bullshitter doesn't care about facts, as he's just making stuff up to suit his needs at the time.

The article pointed out this genius quote: "The media takes Trump literally, but not seriously. His supporters take Trump seriously, but not literally."

In other words, his supporters only care about the message, not how he gets there. He is plainspoken and "speaks to the common man." Whereas Hillary is very calculated and uses big words.

In other words, it's not a surprise that uneducated hillbillies are more partial to Trump's 3rd grade vocabulary. So by all means, go vote for the candidate that all the dumb people like because he don't use them fancy college words.

[Isgrimnur]

My response to people that would take me to task for using big words is that I spend tens of thousands of dollars to learn those big words, and, on occasion, I like to get my money's worth out of them.

[Papa Smurph]

The reality is that no one has a choice beyond these two. To believe otherwise is extraordinarily naive. Sure, we can rail about how everyone should be voting for neither candidate, but it simply won't happen. The alternatives to the GOP and Dem candidates failed to make much of an impression, and whether or not we like it, the two party system is still too strong right now.

I can't vote Trump because the man has absolutely no redeeming factors. None. I would rather have a corrupt president than a corrupt AND grossly incompetent one.

So again, it's not that many of us are in love with one candidate. It's that we've faced the facts and understand the reality of it.

+1

[Chrisoc13]

I guess I don't see Hillary as just another politician. I can't remember a candidate with more scandals and more baggage. Yet Democrats keep trying to brush away scandal after scandal but after a while... It just starts to smell bad. I've seen the explanations for every scandal, some are better than others, but mostly the explanations are weak at best. And honestly if you have to explain away numerous scandals you have to start wondering why are we spring such a corrupt politician. She's not just any politician, she exemplifies the corruption of the system.

Trump on the other hand exemplifies the American obsession with social media, trolling, and reality television. Gross.

I actually don't find her policies that distasteful. It's her character that I can't stomach. Either way this president will be DOA and likely out in four years if a reasonable candidate can be put forth by the opposing party finally.

Coming at this as a third party voter myself, where I'm disagreeing with you is what appears to be making Hillary's sins equivalent to Trump's. Maybe that's not your intent, but that's how I'm reading it. Hillary is flawed, but she's orders of magnitude better than Trump.

Sorry no not equivalent. I can see how it would come across that way. But pointing out how terrible a candidate she is does not mean supporting Trump.

I figured for the most part in this forum it was just known that he is a terrible candidate. I've said since day one he is not fit to be president. Though I am conservative I am absolutely a nevertrumper. So to be clear I do not think they are equivalent. She is bad, he is worse. I was more pointing out my annoyance with acting as though she is a reasonable candidate. She's not, Democrats are in an echo chamber. I just find the echo chamber comments towards the right ironic when they are in the exact same situation.

I get it if people feel they have to vote for one of the two. I won't though. While one may be worse neither will get my support for president.

[GreenGoo]

I guess I don't see Hillary as just another politician. I can't remember a candidate with more scandals and more baggage. Yet Democrats keep trying to brush away scandal after scandal but after a while... It just starts to smell bad.

I hear you, but Hillary has been around a long time, and she has been the target of politics a long time. Hell, my opinion of her has dropped slightly based on nothing but other people telling me how terrible she is.

It's not coincidence that she has been targeted so many times by Republicans, but neither is it because she's a dangerous, corrupt politician. If anything it's because she's a strong, powerful politician that they know is a threat. They don't spend millions of tax dollars making up scandals and then attacking Bernie, for example.

Take benghazi. Have you ever, and I mean EVER, seen so many congressional committees formed for one specific purpose only to fail miserably at it? You think she's just "that good" that she can wiggle her way out of nearly constant scrutiny over decades?

She must be a magician.

She is very much hated. She hasn't done anything nearly bad enough to warrant that level of hate.

This election has taught me that I actually like Bush jr. much more than I recognized at the time. You never think it can get any worse, but it can. And it has. I can hardly wait to see Drumpf's executive orders' list at the end of his first term. It will be held up and studied in political science for decades.

[GreenGoo]

We're not talking about paying for some hungry kids lunch here. Not only should our allies pay their share, I think we haven't been charging them enough.

Lol, but this is a false narrative. There is no pool of money and no one pays anyone else. There is an agreement to spend a certain % of their GDP on defense. It doesn't even have to be used for NATO missions.

While it's true that some nations do not meet this requirement, no one owes the US anything. And that doesn't even cover the idea that the US wants to lead anything they are involved in. Any major NATO operation that includes US troops is practically required to have US officers in charge of it. That's because that's part of the (unofficial) price of having the US do the heavy lifting. Not to mention that NATO operations are often in the US's own self interest. Meaning they aren't "donating" to other countries so much as protecting their interests (which are often in the interests of other NATO countries as well, but not always).

No one is not paying their fair share, because there isn't a NATO share in the first place. the US doesn't "charge" anyone for anything.

[El Guapo]

We have every reason to expect Donald Trump to actively undermine American democratic institutions if he's elected. He may well fail, but he's going to try. That's fucking scary, and it is reason enough for me to vote for Clinton.

[GreenGoo]

We have every reason to expect Donald Trump to actively undermine American democratic institutions if he's elected. He may well fail, but he's going to try. That's fucking scary, and it is reason enough for me to vote for Clinton.

Yeah, I mean...Drumpf is a cancer on Democracy. I don't care how much you hate Hillary, Drumpf is pure poison.

He's actively undermining the very cornerstones of your constitution (and bill of rights!) and he's encouraging others to do so as well. That kind of thinking is incredibly dangerous to the country's well being and longevity.

He's actively turning people against the foundations of your country. If that isn't some serious Mr. Evil shit, I don't know what is. And that doesn't even cover the long list of character flaws, lack of skills and inexperience. he's damaged goods. I wouldn't elect him head of my pta, let alone give him anything in the vicinity of real political power.

[El Guapo]

Also, for anyone who thinks financial regulation should be tougher, the next president is going to be able to nominate a majority (3 of 5) SEC commissioners. I am sure a Donald Trump majority SEC is going to be dying to stick it to financial malfeasance.

[NickAragua]

Man, I remember one time I told you guys that the "average american voter" is a fucking dumbass. And then I got bitched at. Who's laughing now? (not me, I'll be headed to the trump gulag after the inauguration)

[GreenGoo]

Having watched interviews with Drumpf supporters that weren't stereotypes, I'd argue that "misinformed" is probably closer to "dumbass", although every country has its share of dumbasses. The Dems have their share, but so far it hasn't resulted in a Drumpf-like failure.

[Chrisoc13]

Man, I remember one time I told you guys that the "average american voter" is a fucking dumbass. And then I got bitched at. Who's laughing now? (not me, I'll be headed to the trump gulag after the inauguration)

This... It's sadly apparent.

Or as it is said in veep-

"I've met some people, some real people, and I gotta tell you, a lot of them are fucking idiots."

[hitbyambulance]

The working theory is that Trump isn't a liar insomuch as he is a bullshitter. A liar can be contradicted with facts. A bullshitter doesn't care about facts, as he's just making stuff up to suit his needs at the time.

i made this point in another thread. a liar knows there is a truth and they know are in some way, in opposition to it. a bullshitter is 'afactual' - they don't care what the truth is; they'll construct their very own reality-of-the-moment*.

*subject to change

[morlac]

Edit to add- This is the first cycle in a long time I have felt both sides candidates disgust me. I didn't vote for Obama either time but I think he has been a fine president, one I am proud to say leads our country. I

This! It is embarrassing that these are the two best candidates our great nation can produce. The entire world is pointing at us and giving us the "Nelson Laugh". I am having a hard time even mustering the motivation to vote....sad.

[NickAragua]

Having watched interviews with Drumpf supporters that weren't stereotypes, I'd argue that "misinformed" is probably closer to "dumbass", although every country has its share of dumbasses. The Dems have their share, but so far it hasn't resulted in a Drumpf-like failure.

Right, in my view, there's two categories of Donald supporters. 1) Those who will directly benefit from his policies and 2) Those who for some reason think that they'll benefit from his policies even though they really won't.

Now, we can split hairs about "misinformed" and "dubmass", but the line between the two is awfully blurry when the relevant information is quite freely available. "misinformed" implies that there's some way to correct the situation by the, uh, application of information. Do you really think that that's the case for most of those guys?

[GreenGoo]

Do you really think that that's the case for most of those guys?

Some of them, yes. Not the rabid ones, but the ones that think Rep=good, Dem=bad, that buy into Drumpf's public persona and branding. There was a lot of "he's a successful business man, he must be smart and will probably be good for the economy".

A little education from other republicans might go far with them. These are the voters doing their thing, living their lives, not paying attention to policy specifics, not watching the debates, not following Drumpf around waiting to jump on everything he says.

Most of his supporters seem to be rabid. But not everyone.

[YellowKing]

It's not coincidence that she has been targeted so many times by Republicans, but neither is it because she's a dangerous, corrupt politician. If anything it's because she's a strong, powerful politician that they know is a threat. They don't spend millions of tax dollars making up scandals and then attacking Bernie, for example.

Let's not forget that they're not just trying to bring down one politician; they're trying to bring down a political dynasty. The targeting started with Bill Clinton, and he managed to get through two terms of it. After he was gone, they had no choice but to bring down his heir to the throne. They've spent years trying to prevent the very thing that is going to wind up happening anyway.

And yes, it's just another nail in the coffin of why the GOP disgusts me these days. They spend more time worrying about demonizing the other side of the aisle than they do with actually focusing on the country's problems, and that's reprehensible. And it's really shameful that most Republicans revel in it rather than saying "Hold up guys. We're better than this."

[NickAragua]

Do you really think that that's the case for most of those guys?

Some of them, yes. Not the rabid ones, but the ones that think Rep=good, Dem=bad, that buy into Drumpf's public persona and branding. There was a lot of "he's a successful business man, he must be smart and will probably be good for the economy".

A little education from other republicans might go far with them. These are the voters doing their thing, living their lives, not paying attention to policy specifics, not watching the debates, not following Drumpf around waiting to jump on everything he says.

Most of his supporters seem to be rabid. But not everyone.

That's fair, for the small subset of voters that you describe.

Although, once someone casts a vote based on ignorance, they cross the line from "misinformed" to "dumbass" fairly permanently in my book.

Don't get me wrong, the liberal side has plenty of idiots too. Had more than one person on my facebook feed proudly proclaim having voted for Jill Stein.