2016 Presidential Election

[Dak]

We may not know exactly what Trump will do, but I know what kind of president he'll be. There's not much room for doubt about that. I know the kind of country he'll represent, and I know the kind of people he appeals to. I don't want that, and to be honest it embarrasses me.

There are a couple of things in this paragraph I find interesting. First, that you feel confident about "what kind of president he'll be". I have confidence in very little in terms of specifics because he has no relevant track record to look at. This is where his lack of track record could mean he'll do ok and "hire the best people" etc., or he could be literally Hitler (not really, but you know). I'm curious as to some specifics you are certain about.

The other thing is that A. You think he'll represent "some kind of country", and B. that you could be personally embarrassed by Trump in the Oval Office, regardless of how he performs his job and/or whether you voted for him. Both things are so curious. I think Clinton is the worst candidate since McClain, and probably worse than McClain, but I wouldn't be embarrassed by her. I am not voting for her, and how she fucks up should only embarrass those who did. She's "not my president".

I don't have blind faith in Clinton, despite plenty of my Facebook friends telling me I'm a sheep being led to slaughter. I simply don't place as much value on the issues for which people criticize her. Even if Clinton knew she was being negligent and that there could be issues with using a private server, it doesn't make any difference to me. The narrative circulating Clinton is that she makes Americans unsafe, but she's not making the country any less safe than it already is. Hell, I'll take this one step further: even if Clinton used a private email server in order to intentionally leak classified information, I would still vote for her over Trump. My impression of such a political figure would be that while her behavior might be ethically controversial, I would still interpret such behavior as a reflection of geopolitical complexity.

Despite everything, I don't believe that Clinton is out to undermine the United States. I think she sees a politician's role (and especially the president's role) as one of negotiating and navigating impossible issues, and making lots of decisions that individuals find reprehensible. Trump appears to think that he can make genuinely righteous and morally sound decisions as president. Furthermore, he also appears to have no conception of the complexity of global relations, and seems to fall back on the brute strength and exceptional quality of America. That's a more dangerous position than Clinton's scheming and potential criminality.

I never said Clinton wasn't going to foster peaceful relations with all countries. I said she understands the dynamics and details of international relations. Trump's botched rambling on issues in the Middle East is enough to convince me that he has very little understanding of what's going on there, the history of it, and what to do about it.

Her "secret agenda" is to get elected, and I don't think her masterplan is to get elected so that she can bring about the downfall of the United States. So if she made some shady backroom deals to secure the presidency, then so be it. Despite all this condemnation and accusation that she works privately rather than legitimately with the government is also undermined by the fact that she has worked legitimately with the government now for decades. Does this mean she hasn't engaged in clandestine behavior? No, absolutely not - but then, most politicians have engaged in such behavior. We're just being force-fed Clinton's scandals because she's running for president.

All of these quotes basically can be summed as stating that it is your belief in Clinton's transgressions being "typical politician stuff", and that she has some advanced grasp of this constantly mentioned "geopolitical complexity", while Trump "rambles on the Middle East" and has come on to women, both of which are somehow worse? I don't follow the reasoning here.

It would make more sense to believe Clinton doesn't understand geopolitical complexity, because she possesses an actual track record, and it is terrible.The most egregious example of course being Libya. Libya went from a decent place to live relative to the rest of the continent to being dragged into the abyss of bedlam that the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton foreign policy continuum has created and maintained in the Middle East (above and beyond the earlier problems created by older interventions). That, by all accounts, falls entirely on her. I was railing about Libya shortly before/as it occurred and things pretty much went how I (and others said). Furthermore, Clinton still believes she made the right decision too, which is yet another example where she cuts a destructive swath in pursuit of certain failure and shows no remorse or learning for or from what she has done.

Clinton might somehow become enlightened in how the geopolitical orientation she has is at the very least counterproductive, but it's extremely unlikely. Trump has no track record, but he certainly has - at least in his speeches - been much less adversarial than Clinton has demonstrated by years of voting and actions in office.

For the other piece, let us assume - to grant you the worst case - that all sexual assault charges against Trump are true. I think it's interesting that you think 40 cases of unwanted crotch grabbing is so much, much worse than putting the lives and livelihoods of billions of people at risk (or in some cases, simply destroying them). I certainly don't weigh things in that way. Even if you tack on Trump potentially defrauding a thousand people of X amounts of money each, it still pales.

In this manner of the common "lesser of the two evils" model of voting, it is extremely interesting to see how much evil "weight" people attach to things. It would seem that if I killed a female Hillary voter, that would be more readily overlooked than if I slapped her on the ass or called her nasty.

 

[Einherjar86]

You blame Libya "all on her," despite also acknowledging that its decline has been the result of developing relations since the first President Bush - a process that she only came to play a more direct role in since only 2009 or so. Her actual track record is far from terrible; and I know, you've been a prophet when it comes to foreign relations... but it doesn't take a genius to say "this won't end well."

As far as Clinton's abilities on the world stage go, even a track record as muddled and controversial as hers is better than Trump's. I know who his "best people" are, and they're not my best people. And yes, I would be embarrassed to count myself the member of a country who elects that kind of personality to the presidential office.

If Trump got into office and did a complete one-eighty, publicly apologizing for and condemning all the things he said during his campaign... then I would be flabbergasted, but I would feel reassured. But I know that he won't do these things. Clinton has apologized multiple times and she hasn't even evinced a personality half as reprehensible as Trump's. But honestly, it isn't the personality that worries me: it's the intellect. That's not to say Trump isn't intelligent, but it takes a different kind of intellect to run a business than it does to run a country.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Is it the wall and the Muslim ban that have got you rattled? Or protectionism and nationalism in general?

 

[Dak]

You blame Libya "all on her," despite also acknowledging that its decline has been the result of developing relations since the first President Bush - a process that she only came to play a more direct role in since only 2009 or so. Her actual track record is far from terrible;

Yes, the negative US orientation towards Libya precedes Hillary. But she supported the actual attacks, partially by saying we had to pay back the international community for their help in Iraq. One bad decision justifies another! Can you maybe list some of her achievements then, if it's far from terrible?

but it doesn't take a genius to say "this won't end well."

I agree. So what is her excuse?

As far as Clinton's abilities on the world stage go, even a track record as muddled and controversial as hers is better than Trump's. I know who his "best people" are, and they're not my best people. And yes, I would be embarrassed to count myself the member of a country who elects that kind of personality to the presidential office.

Yeah I've heard Christie's name floated for something which is equally parts gagworthy as it is amusing. But I wouldn't be embarrassed. Whichever candidate winds up in office, their misdeeds lie partially on the heads of the respective voters, not myself. If I were to be embarrassed by all the stupid things other people do I'd probably need therapy . There's also a lack of context: If you examine politicians across the globe, most if not all are "embarrassing".

If Trump got into office and did a complete one-eighty, publicly apologizing for and condemning all the things he said during his campaign... then I would be flabbergasted, but I would feel reassured. But I know that he won't do these things. Clinton has apologized multiple times and she hasn't even evinced a personality half as reprehensible as Trump's. But honestly, it isn't the personality that worries me: it's the intellect. That's not to say Trump isn't intelligent, but it takes a different kind of intellect to run a business than it does to run a country.

I'm curious as to what Trump has said that he needs to apologize for. He's certainly said some incorrect things, which he could offer corrections for, but that's different. Again, the immense weight you (and most Hillary apologists) ascribe to some limited interpersonal misconduct in comparison with the flippancy towards ruining the lives of millions and/or placing billions at risk in a variety of ways is interesting. I believe that the dead, dying, and starving of Libya etc would love to live the lives of the women that Trump has allegedly groped if they could have a choice. I know if I had to pick between being a Libyan starting in 2010 vs one of those women what I would pick (Hint: get me as far from the Middle East as possible).

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, the negative US orientation towards Libya precedes Hillary. But she supported the actual attacks, partially by saying we had to pay back the international community for their help in Iraq. One bad decision justifies another! Can you maybe list some of her achievements then, if it's far from terrible?

Fostering communications and a platform for future relations for one thing, the Diplomacy and Development Review. I know that plenty of conservatives see this as a waste of resources, but that's because they usually can't beyond the false imperative of immediate and quantifiable results.

Aside from that, she's intervened into plenty of diplomatic issues with moderate degrees of success - Russia (in the past), Turkey, et al. The fiasco in Libya has seriously overshadowed several initiatives prior to it.

I agree. So what is her excuse?

That she got handed a shit salad, was asked to pick the shit out of it, and ended up dropping a bunch of it. Is some of it on her? Yes - but not all of it, sorry. The shit-stained line is long...

Yeah I've heard Christie's name floated for something which is equally parts gagworthy as it is amusing. But I wouldn't be embarrassed. Whichever candidate winds up in office, their misdeeds lie partially on the heads of the respective voters, not myself. If I were to be embarrassed by all the stupid things other people do I'd probably need therapy . There's also a lack of context: If you examine politicians across the globe, most if not all are "embarrassing".

I'm not saying you should be embarrassed, and I didn't intend this to be such a sticking point. I don't walk around all day lamenting the state of politics. The presidency has been partially a Hollywood game show since Reagan, which is one reason why Trump is so good at it and Clinton (Hillary, that is) is so bad. It also happened to be a game that Obama knew how to play exceedingly well, and I'm infinitely happy for that.

I'm embarrassed though - and I mean no offense - that so many people still say things like this:

I'm curious as to what Trump has said that he needs to apologize for.

I can't identify with comments like this, and I think they're often more for shock effect than anything else - maybe not when you say them, but when most people do they just want to get a rise.

Again, the immense weight you (and most Hillary apologists) ascribe to some limited interpersonal misconduct in comparison with the flippancy towards ruining the lives of millions and/or placing billions at risk in a variety of ways is interesting. I believe that the dead, dying, and starving of Libya etc would love to live the lives of the women that Trump has allegedly groped if they could have a choice. I know if I had to pick between being a Libyan starting in 2010 vs one of those women what I would pick (Hint: get me as far from the Middle East as possible).

Saying that the people of Libya would prefer to be one of the women that Trump groped is not a statement I have any interest in dealing with. I think we can agree that the situation in Libya is regrettable without resorting to cheap rhetoric like that. Making it into an ultimatum of being bombed or being sexually assaulted also elides an important distinction: I highly, highly doubt that Clinton wanted to intimidate, harm, and wreak destruction upon the people of Libya, whereas I'm almost positive that Trump loves intimidating and harming people.

So, did Clinton fuck up? Yeah, sure - but again, I see no problem with accepting that fuck-up over Trump any day.

 

[Dak]

Fostering communications and a platform for future relations for one thing, the Diplomacy and Development Review. I know that plenty of conservatives see this as a waste of resources, but that's because they usually can't beyond the false imperative of immediate and quantifiable results.

Aside from that, she's intervened into plenty of diplomatic issues with moderate degrees of success - Russia (in the past), Turkey, et al. The fiasco in Libya has seriously overshadowed several initiatives prior to it.

That she got handed a shit salad, was asked to pick the shit out of it, and ended up dropping a bunch of it. Is some of it on her? Yes - but not all of it, sorry. The shit-stained line is long...

Well we both agree the shitstained line is long. But future relations with who? Relations with the rest of the world have deteriorated for a while now, with allies and adversaries alike. Quite a bit of that is on the Bush administration, but Clinton did zero to turn that ship around.

I can't identify with comments like this, and I think they're often more for shock effect than anything else - maybe not when you say them, but when most people do they just want to get a rise.

That's a curious belief (that people are trying to shock if they don't agree). Almost as curious as, for instance, the belief that "Trump called Mexicans rapists". I assume that's an example of something he supposedly should apologize for. Maybe he needs to apologize for calling Clinton a "nasty woman"?

I highly, highly doubt that Clinton wanted to intimidate, harm, and wreak destruction upon the people of Libya whereas I'm almost positive that Trump loves intimidating and harming people.

We'll have to disagree on the nuances of that analysis I guess, I won't go further on it since it is ultimately all conjecture. Unfortunately there's no experimental option where we get to observe what would happen in both cases. We just get the one we get and everything else is a counterfactual.

 

[Einherjar86]

Personally, I think Trump should apologize for The Apprentice above all else. Apologize for subjecting us to that fucking atrocity of television.

I'm calling it, because you're not voting, and I already did.

 

[Dak]

Personally, I think Trump should apologize for The Apprentice above all else. Apologize for subjecting us to that fucking atrocity of television.

I'm calling it, because you're not voting, and I already did.

He should apologize for the faux gold on everything too if we want to talk about his non-election related mistakes. Reality television in general needs to burn in a special version of hell.

I'd go vote to cancel yours out but then I couldn't complain.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

LGBT group endorses Trump, calls Clinton 'detrimental' for gay community

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Can hardly be surprised that Log Cabin Republicans in Miami (aka Cubans) are endorsing Trump.

Regarding Clinton and Libya, may she would deserve the slightest benefit of the doubt if she didn't blame the Libyan people as the reason why Libya is now dysfunctional.

 

[Dak]

Regarding Clinton and Libya, may she would deserve the slightest benefit of the doubt if she didn't blame the Libyan people as the reason why Libya is now dysfunctional.

 

[CiG]

Hillary Clinton may be the single best example of why you should never let your talentless girlfriend play a role in your garage band.

It also happened to be a game that Obama knew how to play exceedingly well, and I'm infinitely happy for that.

Yeah, he's been an amazing president.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Don't see what makes her less "talented" than Bill tbh

 

[CiG]

Fair enough.

 

[CiG]

This is a great example of the kind of elitist attitude that fueled Trump to win.

Trump is a buffoon and Hillary is going to win handily. /end

I mean in terms of rhetoric, Trump is much more like Hitler than Sanders is. Preaching hatred, discrimination, etc.

Trump is the guy who keeps Mein Kampf on his bedside table but that's okay because he's not liberal, right? He's the most similar to Hitler than any candidate that has ever run for president in the US.

Trump won't do any of those things, because he has no chance against Bernie or Hillary. Fortunately for the rest of us, morons like you are the minority.

Trump would not beat Hillary. He would not get any part of the centrist independent vote, and a lot of non retarded republicans would probably not vote at all. I think he's got a better shot at Bernie tbh.

I still don't think that Trump has a real chance at anything, especially if Clinton gets the nomination. He could maybe beat Sanders though because he's still an unknown

You're just delusional, that's the problem. I honestly really wish you could try out living in the dystopian shithole you fantasize about and see how much you like it after all. The fact that you don't understand why Trump is a fucking clown is a perfect example of how separated you are from the real world.

He hasn't destroyed anyone in a debate yet, and has actually gotten booed fairly often. His tactic of just yelling over people and insulting them doesn't really work.

Clinton is the only real candidate in the race. And she's gonna win by a wide margin, especially if she is smart about her pick for VP.

It's either gonna be Sanders or Clinton. GOP does not have a real candidate.

 

[The Ozzman]

Lol where are you @Matt

 

[CiG]

Crying into his caviar somewhere.

 

[Dak]

But I was delusional!

Edit: Forgot I called that shit so long ago. Now even the pundits agree with me that Bernie was a better choice than Hillary. I was only like 9 months ahead of the curve. Cause I don't live in the real world and stuff.

 

[Baroque]

You could have flipped a coin and had almost the same odds of being right. Calm down mister fortune teller. Why not come on down to vegas then?

 

[CiG]

I thought Trump was going to lose to Hillary so I can't say shit. I wasn't as smug and sure as some fuckers though.