Decision 2016

[Aldin]

Yup - you nailed it DS - the problem is the way the right demonizes the left.

~Aldin, finding it hard to believe such a tone deaf post from such a savvy guy

[anto_capone]

I truly wish there were at least 4 viable political parties to choose from. The sad truth is that until big money is removed from politics there will remain only 2 viable choices each election.

When Democrats and Republicans can outspend Libertarians and Green Party candidates 10,000 to 1 there really is no contest. I agree with Dysole, in that first we need to see more 3rd party people in congress and as governors. It needs to be a more grass roots movement that can slowly snowball into something larger.

Remember, if no candidate receives 270 electoral votes, then the House decides the President. If the House is already filled with 3rd party candidates, then anything can happen.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Yup - you nailed it DS - the problem is the way the right demonizes the left.

~Aldin, finding it hard to believe such a tone deaf post from such a savvy guy

I am keenly aware that the myth is that the opposite is true. It's all about myth, even in 2016.

It's been explored thoroughly in the preceding pages. The Clinton non-scandals are not a big deal. Not Benghazi, not the emails, not her foundation. None of it. And none of the earlier ones had any merit to them, either: Travelgate, etc. Thirty years of political hit jobs, and nothing has landed a solid blow. Why not? Because it's smoke and mirrors, the creation of a myth.

It doesn't matter, though, because when there's enough media coverage, people buy in. They remember the myth, and not the decades of individually unsupported accusations.

Even historically Republican papers are endorsing the Democrat this cycle, but it doesn't matter. Like kudzu, the myths cover everything.

Here is a serious review of the candidates, from abroad. Do me a favor and read it. I swear, I post these things all the time and I don't think anybody reads them.

People voting for Trump would wreck this country, and those so cynical or disinterested that they are declining to participate or voting for some non-factor third party are just as blameworthy. We are an economic and military superpower and a beacon of freedom in a dangerous world. There is no other country that can lay claim to that honor, or that responsibility. I did not understand until yesterday, as I was driving on the highway and having an epiphany, that *this* is what Roosevelt meant when he said that "there is nothing to fear, but fear itself."

We have rising wages and falling unemployment. Is there more to do? Of course. There always is. But the idea that we should despair of improving is nonsense. Improvement is possible. It just takes work, like everything else.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Here is a serious review of the candidates, from abroad. Do me a favor and read it. I swear, I post these things all the time and I don't think anybody reads them.

I appreciate the link and I think that it make a number of good points.

I just can't vote for Trump because I don't trust his judgment, personality or character. During the election, he has feuded with so many different people for so many stupid reasons.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...abbles-n655941
When I consider the idiotic fights that Trump had with Megyn Kelly, the Kahn family, Alicia Machado, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, Rev. Faith Green Timmons, Graydon Carter, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jon Stewart, Seth Meyers, Robert De Niro, Cher, Rosie O'Donnell, Serge Kovaleski, and the multiple women who have accused him of sexual assault, I don't see how he can be the commander in chief of the armed forces. Trump is so thin-skinned that he seems to be unable to walk away from squabbles that can only do him harm. Do we really need Trump to get insulted by the leader of Iran, South Korea, Somalia, Sudan, etc. and to bring us into a war. His talk of rigged elections is reckless and dangerous but completely in character as Trump can never admit to any personal failings. Even during the republican primaries, Trump followed a scorched earth policy that left him virtually without allies. Is this really the character and personality of the person that we want to lead our country?

As I have written earlier, I don't like or trust Hillary Clinton. Still I don't see her as being dangerous in the same way that I see Trump as dangerous. Yes, I will vote for Hillary, she is by far, the lesser of two evils.

[wriggz]

I dinno,

The most memorable Obama Witch Hunt was the Birther Nonsense. Something that got national media attention, attention within the government and Ironically attention of the current Republican Nomine.

I think the most memorable W. Bush witch Hunt is that 911 was an inside job? A fringe theory that no sensible democrat representative would ever entertain. There was also the Mission accomplished banner. Oh and his lack of military service. I suppose you could claim "Trickle Down Economics" as a witch hunt, but in that case the witch is real.

Going to Clinton, there was the infidelity issues. Which no one is denying at this point.

If there are more Bush (either one)/Obama/Clinton scandals that still resonate, I'm happy to acknowledge them, those are just the ones that come to mind.

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by anto_capone

I truly wish there were at least 4 viable political parties to choose from. The sad truth is that until big money is removed from politics there will remain only 2 viable choices each election.

The money really isn't the major problem. The major problem is the way we elect representatives in this country. With a first past the post voting system that makes smaller parties get a disproportionately small share of representation compared to their vote share. Until the US changes the way we elect people into power, we pretty much will be stuck with two majors parties. It is hard for other parties to succeed. Even if in a decade the Libertarians somehow are winning a significant number of seats, it almost surely will just be in place of the Republican party, so there will not be so much three parties as one party just supplanted another. (And even that is unlikely).

That is why, if you truly care about the fact we only ever have two true candidates for president, you'll need to find state senators/representatives that are willing to change their state's election rules to some other type of system that can better achieve proportional representation. Change like that will be slow and require local politicians making changes.

To those who are voting third party presidential candidate this year in some hope that this will change the system or give their third party better chances in the future....you will be sorely dissapointed. The truth is next election the Democrats and Republicans may put up less objectionable candidates and many of this cycle's third party voters will go right back and no change will have been achieved.



[quote=Dad_Scaper;2120067]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Here is a serious review of the candidates, from abroad. Do me a favor and read it. I swear, I post these things all the time and I don't think anybody reads them.

People voting for Trump would wreck this country, and those so cynical or disinterested that they are declining to participate or voting for some non-factor third party are just as blameworthy. We are an economic and military superpower and a beacon of freedom in a dangerous world. There is no other country that can lay claim to that honor, or that responsibility.

I tend to read the things you link to, but I doubt I am your audience as I really should just always be wearing a "I'm with DadScaper" T-Shirt.

I too agree that your last point is my main concern in many ways. It's also the main argument I've been making with my other millennials. I'm frustrated by how many of my friends are wanting to vote third party because while they hate Trump, they also don't much like Clinton. It drives me nuts seeing them agree that we can't have a president Trump, but then failing to realize that only leaves them one option--president Clinton. Yet they'd rather throw away their vote than help make sure president Trump isn't a thing?

I've at least swayed a few, but I'm admittedly still stymied by many of my fellow millennials.

[Dad_Scaper]

It's unfortunate that people's dislike of Clinton appears to be so unshakeable. Think about how far back the baseless accusations against the Clintons, and her in particular, go: Travelgate (nothing), Whitewater (nothing), supposedly damaging the White House before W. occupied it (nothing); the list goes on with a sum total of nothing. Doesn't matter, people remember the partisan smoke, and nevermind the absence of an actual fire. The smear machine worked.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Ranior

The money really isn't the major problem. The major problem is the way we elect representatives in this country. With a first past the post voting system that makes smaller parties get a disproportionately small share of representation compared to their vote share. Until the US changes the way we elect people into power, we pretty much will be stuck with two majors parties. It is hard for other parties to succeed. Even if in a decade the Libertarians somehow are winning a significant number of seats, it almost surely will just be in place of the Republican party, so there will not be so much three parties as one party just supplanted another. (And even that is unlikely).

That is why, if you truly care about the fact we only ever have two true candidates for president, you'll need to find state senators/representatives that are willing to change their state's election rules to some other type of system that can better achieve proportional representation. Change like that will be slow and require local politicians making changes.

To those who are voting third party presidential candidate this year in some hope that this will change the system or give their third party better chances in the future....you will be sorely dissapointed. The truth is next election the Democrats and Republicans may put up less objectionable candidates and many of this cycle's third party voters will go right back and no change will have been achieved.

++ to all of that.

Third parties need to stop running (relatively unqualified) candidates for president every four years and expecting people to just suddenly take them seriously. What they need to do is:

• Build up a party apparatus and a bench of viable candidates at the state level,
• Run candidates for secretaries of state and election boards around the country, and
• Attempt to push, via ballot initiative, alternative voting methods that remove the spoiler effect.

[vegietarian18]

I find blaming both the "two-party system" and "first-past-the-post voting" to be kind of annoying. Why can't we expect more out of the two parties that we have?

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

I find blaming both the "two-party system" and "first-past-the-post voting" to be kind of annoying. Why can't we expect more out of the two parties that we have?

I find blaming the two parties to be kind of annoying. Why can't we expect more out of the voters who fairly elected these two in the extensive primary seasons we have?


In a more serious response though, these two candidates got elected after a lengthy primary process that is meant to filter out poor candidates and elect the best. I'd personally argue that the Republican's made quite a mistake in electing Trump, and really should have gone with someone like Marco Rubio who'd likely be doing a fine job of winning this thing. (And he'd be a candidate who I'd at least trust to handle the job of the presidency pretty well, even if I think some/many of his policies are a bit misguided.) For the Democrats, I truly think Hillary Clinton is a great choice, as do many others. She would be the most qualified president in recent memory with decades of experience in many different roles, including tons of foreign policy and relations experience coupled with plenty of time in congress.

But I guess my main point is that it's reasonable to want more out of the two parties we have. But if that's what we want as an electorate, well then we are responsible for voting for that candidate and supporting them. Right now, the people have spoken--and these are the candidates and parties that we have.

I personally would love to see more Democrats get elected that are capable of listening to and speaking to the section of America that is skeptic of the government and who feel can't trust Congress. I'd like more Democrats to be more open and honest with everyone. But for some reason the Democratic Party has done a poor job reaching out to these voters and making their positions clear. They also have done a poor job really standing up for some of what they believe in and fighting for it. They have things they can work on of course.

I'd personally love to see a Republican party try to govern instead of obstruct. The Tea Party wing in particular continues to push government into a morass of partisanship where nothing can happen. Blocking supreme court nominations, shutting down the government for awhile to get what they want, and constantly voting to repeal Obamacare as a symbolic act is sad. They really could be a party that pushes fiscal conservatism and could be socially conservative/moderate without sounding tone deaf like many of them do. In this day and age, fighting gay rights or demonizing minorities isn't doing any good and is just halting the inevitable social progress. The Republican party has many flaws, and as has been seen in this election, the establishment really has lost sway over a part of their party who wants even more radical changes.

I'd also argue both parties have gotten very bad at working towards compromise or pushing out legislation both sides work towards. Part of this is due to the Republican obstructionism (I'd argue most of it), while part is certainly some Democrat's unwillingness to be pragmatic and accept a compromise. The gerrymandering in districts continues to get worse and worse, encouraging more and more "extreme" candidates. We really do need/deserve state representative and senators that realize fair districts would create a more moderate atmosphere and candidates who would do a better job of listening to and responding to the electorate.

So while it would surely be nice to see the parties do this, the way to effect change is to elect politicians who want to do this. Until we as a people do that, blaming that parties is really blaming ourselves. We pick our candidates, our candidates largely do what it takes to get votes and stay in power. In my opinion the blame is as much on the voters as on the political parties we do have.

[vegietarian18]

Originally Posted by Ranior

In a more serious response though, these two candidates got elected after a lengthy primary process that is meant to filter out poor candidates and elect the best. I'd personally argue that the Republican's made quite a mistake in electing Trump, and really should have gone with someone like Marco Rubio who'd likely be doing a fine job of winning this thing. (And he'd be a candidate who I'd at least trust to handle the job of the presidency pretty well, even if I think some/many of his policies are a bit misguided.) For the Democrats, I truly think Hillary Clinton is a great choice, as do many others. She would be the most qualified president in recent memory with decades of experience in many different roles, including tons of foreign policy and relations experience coupled with plenty of time in congress.

The argument that Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush or whoever would have been better, from a Democratic perspective, is a really bad one. They have the same bad ideas Trump has, maybe in a less chaotic package, but the same ideas. I strongly dislike the idea that Trump is an anomaly of a candidate that will destroy the country if he wins. He is different than other Republicans, but not that much worse. In some aspects he's better. It's just a narrative that's been picked up because Clinton isn't running on her own strengths anymore. I'm okay with forced narratives, but this one divides people for not believing in it.

So I'm not sure what you mean when you say Clinton is the most qualified candidate in decades. I think it should be clear just from her style of campaign (total focus on Trump's negatives) that she isn't. Most of the things you can cite as her "qualifications" are just her being active in the political sphere for a lot of years.

Originally Posted by Ranior

But I guess my main point is that it's reasonable to want more out of the two parties we have. But if that's what we want as an electorate, well then we are responsible for voting for that candidate and supporting them. Right now, the people have spoken--and these are the candidates and parties that we have.

I personally would love to see more Democrats get elected that are capable of listening to and speaking to the section of America that is skeptic of the government and who feel can't trust Congress. I'd like more Democrats to be more open and honest with everyone. But for some reason the Democratic Party has done a poor job reaching out to these voters and making their positions clear. They also have done a poor job really standing up for some of what they believe in and fighting for it. They have things they can work on of course.

Yes. I agree. If I want more out of the Democratic party, then I should not support them with my vote. If I vote for Clinton, then I tell them that I'm fine with what they're doing.

Originally Posted by Ranior

So while it would surely be nice to see the parties do this, the way to effect change is to elect politicians who want to do this. Until we as a people do that, blaming that parties is really blaming ourselves. We pick our candidates, our candidates largely do what it takes to get votes and stay in power. In my opinion the blame is as much on the voters as on the political parties we do have.

I strongly disagree with putting equal blame on the people. The parties have a responsibility to produce candidates that reflect the views of their electorate. If people are misinformed by news sites that collaborate with the parties themselves, that's not the fault of the people, that's exploitation of the people's trust.

[Swamper]

I'm not a fan of Donald Trump. The man offends every notion I have of a leader, and from what he's shown me I don't even know if I would consider him a decent man. He's as about as far from the example of Jesus Christ as he can be.

That being said, if you're going to vote Trump, own it. If you're voting Trump, you're not only endorsing the Republican platform, you're endorsing Trump the man.

Don't try to justify voting for Trump with appeals about the Supreme Court or how bad Hillary is or anything like that. I have a lot of friends, a lot of Christian brothers and sisters that are bending over backwards to justify voting for Trump when they know in their heart it's wrong.

I have more respect for those friends that don't attempt to defend or justify Trump, but admit that they are electing a seriously, seriously flawed man and are okay with that. I have more respect for those people than I do for my friends that are attempting to make voting for Trump morally defensible.

That being said, I still have a feeling Trump will pull this out.