Thread Rating:

Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 683
July 29th, 2016 at 8:22:18 AM permalink
One more quote. Don't want to over do it, but it's particularly relevant.

As Emmett Rensin has written, elite liberalism has become characterized by a “smug style” that simply shouts “idiots!” at the “stupid hicks” who are getting “conned by right-wingers.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6507
July 29th, 2016 at 9:52:38 AM permalink
Quote: Rigondeaux

One more quote. Don't want to over do it, but it's particularly relevant.

As Emmett Rensin has written, elite liberalism has become characterized by a “smug style” that simply shouts “idiots!” at the “stupid hicks” who are getting “conned by right-wingers.

There aren't any right-wingers in this year's election. The closest is probably the Johnson/Weld ticket, at least of the folks who aren't de minimus minor parties and mathematically cannot win the presidency (like the Constitution party).

If someone believes in supply-side economics, that tax cuts for the wealthy is a net benefit for the nation's economy, and votes accordingly, that's a fairly-considered vote. I wouldn't agree, but I can't fault the vote on that basis. But that is categorically different than a voter, based on nothing other than blind faith and anger at the status quo, believing a proven swindler who says "Americans have a problem with $PROBLEM, only I can fix it, and that's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna fix it by making it so much better, believe me."

It doesn't matter whether you're a stupid hick or a smart urbanite, it absolutely is idiocy to believe a content-free promise like that, especially coming from a man with a well-documented history of defrauding others. I fully comprehend that a lot of people are pissed off about $PROBLEM but that doesn't mean the solution is to hire a guy with no experience just because he's yelling the loudest. You'd never do that for your car, your plumbing, or your health. Why on earth would you do that for the national economy?

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that Hillary will win. She appears to be running headlong into a classic pincers movement, with Jill Stein on her left and Gary Johnson on her right. If Stein captures enough Hillary voters, and Johnson captures enough Hillary and Trump voters, it's possible that nobody gets to 270. If Johnson finishes #3, then the House picks from Trump, Clinton, and Johnson. Johnson might win in that scenario.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Joeman
Joeman 
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 779
July 29th, 2016 at 10:22:49 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that Hillary will win. She appears to be running headlong into a classic pincers movement, with Jill Stein on her left and Gary Johnson on her right. If Stein captures enough Hillary voters, and Johnson captures enough Hillary and Trump voters, it's possible that nobody gets to 270. If Johnson finishes #3, then the House picks from Trump, Clinton, and Johnson. Johnson might win in that scenario.

That's an interesting scenario to consider, but I have my doubts whether there is even a remote chance. In '92, Perot got 19% of the popular vote (including my first ever presidential vote!) and exactly 0 electors. It's tough for a 3rd party candidate (not to mention a 4th) to compete with the stranglehold that the two big parties have on the electorate.
"Dealer has 'rock'... Pay 'paper!'"
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6507
July 29th, 2016 at 10:36:48 AM permalink
Quote: Joeman

That's an interesting scenario to consider, but I have my doubts whether there is even a remote chance. In '92, Perot got 19% of the popular vote (including my first ever presidential vote!) and exactly 0 electors. It's tough for a 3rd party candidate (not to mention a 4th) to compete with the stranglehold that the two big parties have on the electorate.

I know -- over the past century, there have been less than 100 electoral votes won in total by all 3rd parties. But this isn't a typical election cycle, and I've never heard of a candidate being so reviled by elected members of his own party. If the House were in Democrat hands and Clinton were in a runoff, there'd be no question what would happen. But the House is in GOP hands and a lot of them can't stand Trump...
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
JimRockford
JimRockford
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 459
July 29th, 2016 at 11:02:03 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

I know -- over the past century, there have been less than 100 electoral votes won in total by all 3rd parties. But this isn't a typical election cycle, and I've never heard of a candidate being so reviled by elected members of his own party. If the House were in Democrat hands and Clinton were in a runoff, there'd be no question what would happen. But the House is in GOP hands and a lot of them can't stand Trump...

Even so I don't see the libertarians being strong enough to take a state. Maine and Nebraska each divide their votes so they could pick up a couple of votes. If the Libertarians knew how to really compete, this would be their year, but they have never tried to win. I read that Mary Matalin joined the Libertarians, so maybe they are starting to think along those lines.
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things." - Isaac Newton
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 683
July 29th, 2016 at 11:12:35 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist



It doesn't matter whether you're a stupid hick or a smart urbanite, it absolutely is idiocy to believe a content-free promise like that, especially coming from a man with a well-documented history of defrauding others. I fully comprehend that a lot of people are pissed off about $PROBLEM but that doesn't mean the solution is to hire a guy with no experience just because he's yelling the loudest. You'd never do that for your car, your plumbing, or your health. Why on earth would you do that for the national economy?



Well, it just depends if you believe the story told by everyone from Chomksy, to Jeffery Sachs to Alex Jones. Have the elites been waging war on the middle class and lower for decades, trying to push this country to a third world model where they have everything and average people have nothing?

If so, nobody epitomizes that more than a politician with a personal fortune of $100 million, accumulated almost entirely through open corruption.

If you do believe that, you might see this as a decision between sitting in an electric chair and sitting in the passenger seat of a car with a very drunk driver.

e.g. MAYBE Trump really believes that we should fight wars rarely but have a strong military to win them decisively. I'm still not keen on his foreign policy, but I like that better than perpetual global conflict for corporate gain, which we know with total certainty is what Hillary favors.

I wish Trump was someone more like Perot, but this is what we've got to work with.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6507
July 29th, 2016 at 11:42:43 AM permalink
Quote: Rigondeaux

Well, it just depends if you believe the story told by everyone from Chomksy, to Jeffery Sachs to Alex Jones. Have the elites been waging war on the middle class and lower for decades, trying to push this country to a third world model where they have everything and average people have nothing?

If so, nobody epitomizes that more than a politician with a personal fortune of $100 million, accumulated almost entirely through open corruption.

I disagree, especially if you're characterizing Clinton as more of an elite than Trump. Seriously? Trump's personal fortune is at least $1 billion, accumulated almost entirely through open corruption and for which he has been found guilty. Just going by the numbers, if Clinton is crooked, Trump is at least 10x as crooked.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

And Trump's tax plan accomplishes precisely the end-game of the class war you're talking about. By slashing taxes on the ultra-rich, he further widens that gap between the average people and the elites. And increases the debt by $11T over a decade to boot.

Don't vote for Hillary if she doesn't represent your values. Maybe she doesn't. But don't vote for Trump thinking he does -- Trump doesn't represent anyone's values. Your only real choice, if you're a conservative, is Johnson.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 683
July 29th, 2016 at 1:11:59 PM permalink
I'd never vote for Trump.

But, it's worth exploring the question posed in the OP, even though it was disingenuous.

I don't know about their tax plans, to be honest. So maybe that's a wash with TPP. But, as difficult as it is to undo legislation against progressive taxation, it's even harder to undo something like TPP. That will be a permanent and serious wound.

Ultimately, I lean to Trump I think, though I won't vote for him. The deciding factor is that if Hillary wins, given her massive unpopularity and her horrible policies, she's likely to lose in 2020. If the Reps get their act together and force a shill through the primaries, that's at least 8 years of badness. If she wins in 2020, that's also 8 years of badness.

If Trump wins, maybe he'll do some good stuff, like preventing TPP along with the bad stuff. Then, hopefully we can get rid of him in just four years.

Maybe the DNC will decide to win with someone who represents voters instead of losing with a warmongering shill. Unlikely, but possible. The resistance to the corporate wing is only going to grow in that time. All of this wasn't just about Bernie Sanders, the individual.

Edit: Oh yeah, Don's obviously crooked. He admits to bribing politicians and I'm sure there's much more. But his wealth does not come exclusively from being bribed to screw over the general population. Hillary is rich almost entirely because she's been paid to act as an agent for special interests in her role as a politician. This is not true of Trump.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6507
July 29th, 2016 at 3:16:06 PM permalink
Quote: Rigondeaux

Edit: Oh yeah, Don's obviously crooked. He admits to bribing politicians and I'm sure there's much more. But his wealth does not come exclusively from being bribed to screw over the general population. Hillary is rich almost entirely because she's been paid to act as an agent for special interests in her role as a politician. This is not true of Trump.

I think that's a distinction without a difference. Trump is rich because he started with $1M and has made shady deals for his entire life, leaving a trail of financial wreckage and spiteful lawsuits in his wake. There are hundreds of people who could testify that Trump dealt fraudulently with them and caused significant, and sometimes fatal, financial damage to their lives or businesses. Trump's only claim to fame is his wealth and his name plastered on buildings and TV shows. He hasn't ever done anything important or, more to the point, for anyone else. Clinton, for all the corruption you allege, has nevertheless made significant advances on several important policy fronts both at home and abroad. She is objectively not, as Trump claims, a failure.

I'm not going to debate the question of whether Hillary is as corrupt as you believe. That's on her to demonstrate, not me, though the narrative from the Dem establishment seems to be "if you say it enough times, as the GOP has over the past four years, then it turns into the truth." But it seems entirely backwards to look at two political candidates, argue that they're both crooked, but give Donald a pass because he's much better at fraud and shady deals than Hillary. Of course he's better at it, that's all he's been focusing on for 20 years. Clinton has also been a children's advocate, legislator, and Secretary of State. She's been too busy to focus all her attention on executing shady deals the way Trump has.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
TwoFeathersATL
TwoFeathersATL
Joined: May 22, 2013
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 3615
July 29th, 2016 at 4:58:41 PM permalink
Oh come on ME, really? You paint a picture where Trump has never accomplished anything without running over little guys with a bulldozer? Not exactly fair and balanced.

And you just say you aren't going to debate Hillary and corruption? Really? Fair and balanced?

I think you can do so much better, so much better. Maybe you could be great, maybe you could make the whole country great again. You have so much to offer.

Nuttin' wrong with getting off to a bad start ;-)
Youuuuuu MIGHT be a 'rascal' if.......(nevermind ;-)...2F

  • Jump to: