Not if one is aware that SCOTUS composition has far more impact/importance than whether Dem A or Dem B is elected.
Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
- Status
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
So we blindly support ANY candidate who is "against " the two corrupt parties,even if he is worse then either?
As someone stated, that is Junior High "I am standing up to the MAN" politics.
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
Sanders and Trump couldn't be any worse than what the two parties have put us through already.
Wars, $19 trillion in debt, no jobs, crumbling infrastructure, crooked trade deals, Wall Street bailouts, etc.
The country is swirling down the toilet.
If you continue to vote for the establishment candidates, you'll keep getting more of the same.
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,591
I'm aware and that is one reason among many why I would support Clinton over Trump/Cruz despite thinking she is a corrupt liar who completely out of touch with average citizens.
It is still sad and detrimental to assume any democratic is automatically better than any republican, whether as POTUS, or for their SCOTUS choice. In the current state of this particular election that may be the case*, but it's still a bad mindset to have towards politics.
*Personally I think there was one, maybe two republican candidates that I might have preferred over Clinton.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
The people she represented as Senator of NY who elected her twice and just voted for her in the primary didn't seem to think she was "a corrupt liar who [is] completely out of touch with average citizens".
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Sounds like what a lot of people in Germany in 1932 said "Well,Hitler can't do any worse"....
I am not trying to do a Godwin,but the idea of blindly supporting ANYBODY who is Anti Establishment for no other reason then he is Antiestablishment is pretty stupid,and is how demogogues get into office.
And I have a hard time buying that Trump is Anti Establishment as far as economics go.
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
I hardly see it as sad or detrimental. If you want to look at it in terms of "teams" well one team is against raising the minimum wage. One team hates abortion and wants to put Planned Parenthood workers in prison. One team opposes people having health care access. One team tries and tries to make discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered people legal. One team hates science and thinks climate change is a hoax. One team opposes negotiating with Iran while pushing for a new war. One team opposes letting in war refugees. One team opposes any and all new infrastructure spending.
So, considering all that why should I quibble on who, exactly, is going to represent the team that opposes all that?
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
All one can say from this is that your football fan analogy is a confusion. We need to have both... people who support candidates because of their individual policies as compared to our own beliefs, but those who can see the big picture and what the policies and platforms of those parties represent.
Are you familiar with constitutional parliamentary democracies? Much more so than in the US system, the parties have programs, often more important than the fact that they have candidates. One tends to vote for the party. The party leader, in fact, can be changed while the government is sitting.
In the US, there have been eras when the line between Democrats and Republicans has been very blurry. But from 1860 to the early 1900s, the differences were on policies and programs. From '32 to '48? Ditto. The blurred lines again started in the television era and ran for a couple of decades, but by the birth of the southern strategy in '72, an ideological divide became apparent and it's become far more apparent, e.g. blatant, with only a minor respite, since then.
There are conservatives who would cut off a finger before they vote for evil libruls. There are moderates and progressives who'd feel the same about the reactionary GOP. A number of sincere people in these forums admitted in the last general election that they were voting Dem in local elections only to prevent the GOP from having a majority in the Senate and the right to choose bible-thumpers to head up, for instance, the Science committee. Similarly, the concern about the Supreme Court is sufficient for many.
Me voting for Bernie or for Hillary is a compromise of my political beliefs. They're both too far right, as was Obama. But I'll vote for them. I'll continue to support more radical candidates (by US standards) to make their ways through the parties and to support the more progressive candidates, even if they don't have a chance. But when it comes down to letting a narcissist and megalomaniac carry around the nuclear football, or selecting a Senate that is likely to appoint David Duke to the Supreme Court? I'll take the lesser of two evils.
Specifically regarding Trump's plans, his financial plans would significantly increase the deficit over and above it's current rate of increase.
Except that the number employed has increased significantly
Nothing Trump has proposed has addressed this, not sure about Bernie
Evidence they're crooked ? Would slapping tariffs on imports help people in the U.S. ? The majority (though not consensus - there never is one among economists) view is that it wouldn't
Well that seems to be the allegation and yet U.S. is still the largest economy in the world and people in the U.S are among the richest. Those that continue to claim that the U.S. is heading down the toilet at a rate of knots is harping back to some golden age that never existed. There's this idea that at some point in the late 50's or early 60's there was the apogee for the working person in the U.S but you only have to look at the segregation in the Southern states to see that wasn't the case - or just look at living standards generally.
Which seems to be gradually increasing prosperity for the majority of people. The alternative, at least from Trump seems to be some kind of scorched-earth policy where the rich get huge tax cuts, the deficit spirals out of control hundreds of billions are spent rounding up and deporting "illegals" and the U.S. cuts itself off from the world with trade barriers.
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
Tony Stark
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,626
How convenient of you to ignore that fact that Trump's tax "plan" would increase the national debt by $10T over a decade.
So a detailed response and you bitch about one point
Certainly with respect to wars, Trump has been all over the place. On one hand he's been saying that no-one would be harder on ISIS than he (which seems to mean ploughing more arms and men into that "war"), on the other he seems to want the U.S. to disengage from its role as international peacekeeper which seems to me that he will only get involved once the problem is ISIS-sized, i.e. critical to regional stability.
I cannot see how this kind of approach, going "la, la, la" with fingers in ears until there's a crisis actually saves money or U.S.
His ignorance on military matters has been demonstrated repeatedly and his claim to be able to reduce military spending AND make U.S. forces more powerful smacks of the same "I can do the best deals" nonsense he has spouted on all other subjects.
edited to add......
Then again he's also said he would increase military spending
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/09/trump-i-would-increase-military-spending/
(excuse the source)
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
That is the exact amount that Obama has been averaging over his presidency -- $1 trillion per year.
Hopefully, Trump will do better than that, but we'll have to wait and see.
Tony Stark
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,626
Very little of that was due to Obama's policy. Simply a fact. Really, the only part of it that was due to new policy was the stimulus which was about $750B.
On the other hand the $10T that I am refering to is the debt that would be caused directly by Trump's policy (his massive tax cuts). And that is in addition to the debt that will happen anyway.
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
A lot of our financial problems stem from defending the world free of charge. Something we have been doing for the last 70 years now. We have spent trillions of dollars, millions are dead, and most of the world now hates us. There has to be a better way.
Trump has suggested charging them for our military presence and protection. We just can't afford it anymore; we are $19 trillion in debt.
Tony Stark
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,626
But we can afford the massive tax cuts that Trump promises which would, with zero doubt whatsoever, hugely increase the national debt.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
ftfy
Good idea. Let's start charging multinational corporations for protecting their access to cheap foreign labor and resources.
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
I was thinking foreign countries, but when you get right down to it I guess we really are just defending the "multinational corporations"; they're the ones running the show.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
You think that there is likely to be less war when one of Trump's policies is to use the Military to threaten China to make them do what he wants?
Dream away. Trump has as much chance of becoming President as me.
Can't wait til the humble pie servings I will be dishing out later this year.
- Status