I am a liberal, and I might vote for Trump

[Fugue]

I am as big of a Bernie Sanders supporter as they come. I volunteered for his campaign and did a brutal tour trying to convince voters to support him in a red state.

I think it's likely that between the DNC hating Sanders, the mainstream media supporting Hillary Clinton, with it's 2 minutes of hate for Sanders, her celebrity compared to Bernie's obscurity, and her endless campaign millions sponsored by wall street, Hillary Clinton is going to get the nomination.

She is a right wing candidate. We are at the point in history where the myth that the DNC is in any way progressive is authentic, and not just rhetoric. The Republican base seems to have already figured out that the RNC is a farce, along with their preferred candidates, and this is why Trump is destroying the other candidates, on that side.

It is in plain view that HIllary Clinton is a Wall Street candidate. She is in favor of continuing to allow banks to gamble with depositor money. The practice that collapsed the economy in 2008, of which we are yet to recover from. This policy will guarantee another crisis in the future, and it will not be the same. We might not survive it as a country, if that happens. Just all around she is a Wall Street socialite. She means well, just like Obama, but she is not the revolutionary thinker we need to save ourselves. She is part of the same system that got us to this precarious point.

Trump is an asshole lunatic that seems to be only in it for the bragging rights and ego. It doesn't seem like he is beholden to that corrupt system that is racing us towards a cliff. He may do so, anyway, in his own way, and he may even make things words, but it's a case of "maybe" vs "it's certain". It's certain the Hillary Clinton and the rest of the establishment will continue to press the accelerator while we drive towards a cliff. She will tell us that opening a window will slow us down.

No, thanks. Trump is a scary proposition, but so is chemotherapy. I see this as a case between engaging is a terribly risky choice that is likely to end in disaster, vs. doing nothing and being sure that it will end in disaster.

If Hillary becomes president, we have no hope of running a dedicated progressive until 2024. If Trump wins, we have a shot at keeping out he establishment, and running a progressive in 2020. For this reason, I am seriously considering voting for Trump, if Hillary gets the nomination. I know Bernie himself would loathe this decision, but I have to do what I think is right.

Please comment if you have something substantive to say about this.

[MixedGirlBL]

You are not alone. See below. www.theguardian.com/.../secret-donald-trump-voters-speak-out

The Occupy protester turned Trump supporter (24, New York)
‘His candidacy is ripping the soul of America apart – we deserve it’

I work in a liberal arts department. I’ve read the works of Karl Marx, Herbert Marcuse, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, Plato, Judith Butler, Simone de Beauvoir, Michel Foucault and so on. I am more inclined to listen to what Slavoj Žižek or Noam Chomsky have to say about current affairs than Rachel Maddow or Bill O’Reilly. If one were to take account of my demographics, the smart money would be to peg me for a Bernie Sanders supporter.

My interest in politics did not truly develop into an intellectually mature form until 2011, when Occupy Wall Street broke out as a populist leftist grass roots movement to combat the evils of unrestricted robber baron capitalism.

Early in 2014 I began concealing my political opinions from people, and it was shortly after this time that I began plotting to vote Republican in hopes that the party would send the country so far in the direction of complete unrestricted neoliberalism and libertarian free market superstition that Americans would come to recognize the dangers of these ideologies and eventually reject them.

I don’t find conversations about how morally repugnant Trump is to be interesting when the rest of the candidates seem to also support imperialistic and fascist policies concerning drone strikes, torture and mass surveillance.

I don’t agree with discussions of how Trump is making the national dialogue more base and vulgar when Obama has instated common core standards to gear humanities education in public schooling to be teaching children how to read memos, rather than cultivating critical thinking skills that would allow them to understand subtle arguments.

Do I like Trump’s platform? No, I think most of it is silly and misguided, but at least it is not the same bullshit casserole that has been on the menu in Washington DC for as long as I have been alive.

His candidacy is a happy accident that is currently ripping the soul of America apart, which is something that I think we desperately need (and deserve) at this time in our history, for better or for worse. I support whatever strange gods happen to be behind his candidacy, for, as Martin Heidegger proclaimed in his famous Der Speigel interview, although for slightly different reasons, “Only a God can save us.”

[Fugue]

The gods responsible for his candidacy is the republican propagandists. For decades, they broadcast the sort of cockamamie rhetoric that brainwashed some people into finding Trump genuinely appealing. They created that frankenstein's monster, and now it appears he's going to destroy them. The last debate in Michigan was priceless. You can mark it as the turning point when the GOP/Foxnews take their gloves off and get serious with Trump.

[MixedGirlBL]

yes and no. A lot of people that support Trump have legitimate concerns. They feel like their voices have not been heard. most of them are not ideologies like those supporting Cruz. In a way, Cruz is scarier.

[Fugue]

Which is it? I never said the entire party is supporting Trump. I know that's not true. But a significant portion of it has broken off, while the rest middle over the same old. That rest, by itself, is not enough to be a viable party.

[cjmtherfcker]

your mistaken if you think someone is coming to save us. That's not how the universe or god works. Whatever we do we have to do on our own, and it starts with waking up and realizing we are all in this together and not each others enemy

[Curmudgeon]

This clown says that "I began plotting to vote Republican in hopes that the party would send the country so far in the direction of complete unrestricted neoliberalism and libertarian free market superstition that Americans would come to recognize the dangers of these ideologies and eventually reject them."

And yet, Trump is protectionist and anything but globalist. This Guardian author really needs to think again.

[MixedGirlBL]

@Curmudgeon Trump's Goldman Sacks administration thinks otherwise, i. e., pro-globalist etc. Trump is all things to all people. Yet, his actions show he will be primarily Pro-Wall Street, with an occasional press conference of opening a factory that will close once he leaves office. Looks like that guy in the Guardian had a point.

[Curmudgeon]

In politics there is a saying, "Better to have one of them inside the tent, pissing out, than outside the tent, pissing in."

I suspect having one Goldman Sachs insider in the cabinet, just to know what they are up to, cannot hurt.

Still, the focus of the administration, and just about all other Trump appointees, appear to be nationalist rather than globalist.

[TadCurious]

It was in either 1998 or 1999 that Bill Clinton signed so-called "financial reform" legislation that repealed the Glass-Steagal Act. The Glass-Steagal Act was passed during the Great Depression to help prevent another financial crisis. It kept commercial banking (your deposits and mine) and investment banking (casino finance) separate. When the repeal legislation was being debated on the floor of the U. S. Senate, former Senator Byron Dorgan gave an impassioned speech against the bill. He accurately predicted that -- if the bill passed and was signed into law -- what would happen one day. That one day came 10 years later with the Great Crash of 2008. No progressive would have signed that legislation. Hillary, aside from the strong possibility she may be indicted for criminally mishandling classified information, is not a progressive. She is a Wall Street politician.

[Fugue]

She was also a champion of a bankruptcy law in the 00s that royally screwed ordinary people, while protecting the rich people's bankruptcy shenanigans of people like Trump.

[brain5000]

I feel you here, bro. Got to say, though, that Hillary harkens back to a time when, if you didn't accept money from almost anyone and everyone, you didn't have a chance in hell. Four years ago Bernie wouldn't have lasted this long.

Back in 1988 we had Jesse Jackson run, then in 1992 it was Jerry Brown... we had a couple of cases where Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean running from the far left, like Bernie. Those guys didn't get anywhere near as far as Bernie has, because this is the year for outsiders.

On the other hand, though, Hillary has been a great Secretary of State, Senator and quite the liberal First Lady. In 1993, one of the first things the Clintons tried to do, which Hillary lead, was to fix the health care system so everyone had access. It failed, but it showed us how strong, capable and smart Hillary is, and she's been proving herself over and over ever since.

Bernie believes all of the right things. His heart is in the right place, and if he gets elected, I will be happy right along with you. But running a democratic republic, where no one person gets to be dictator, is something best handled by people who have been in the game for years. This is why Lyndon Johnson was able to pass some of the most liberal legislation in the 1960s; not because he wasn't an insider and a crook, but because he _was_. He had been in the congress and government for 25 years before becoming president.

Bernie isn't going to pass legislation by telling congress "if other nice countries can have these things, why can't we?" He's right, of course, but that line won't get the job done. What else has he got?

Drumpf, on the other hand, _is_ Wall Street. He is racist blah blah blah... look whatever - the only person who matters to Drumpf is Drumpf. If you like Bernie, you can't reasonably believe Drumpf is going to do more for you than Hillary. If you do, then you haven't been paying attention.

You have to look at it not as though you're picking the homecoming queen, but as though you're hiring the best person to do an important job. The worst thing would be to leave the job unfilled; it won't go unfilled. If you don't hire someone, then someone else will. Do you trust someone else with that important decision?

If you pick someone awful because fuck you, I didn't get my way and I am a big baby -- then you're just hurting yourself and everyone else.

themescompany.com/.../Dont-Cry-Baby-6.jpg

[Fugue]

What was so liberal about her as a first lady? Was it the "tough on crime laws" that demonstrably ended with putting a record percent of the black population in prison?

What made her a "great" senator? What were her accomplishments? Helping to create ISIS by voting for the Iraq war?

Under what criteria are you rating her as a secretary of state? What were her accomplishments? She supported the Libyan conflict?

Bernie's heart is in the right place? His MIND is in the right place. Hillary's support for banks gambling with government-insured depositor money? She is in one place, Wall Street, drinking their Kool-Aid.

So, your reasons for supporting HC are invalid, if you cannot refute what I have said. Calling me, and others like me, a baby, while we point out her pitiful record, is not going to convince anyone. If anything, you have just pushed me a littler further away from her.

[brain5000]

You're cherry-picking negative items from HC's long and distinguished career, asking me to counter them with accomplishments. Is this the part where I point out Bernie's enormous proposed tax increases? That he voted against gun reform? And then we argue about how Hillary and Bernie voted for/against things that fell short because they were better than available alternatives, because neither were dictators and had to compromise in a democratic republic?

No thanks. You completely ignored The First Lady's health care initiative that I mentioned, and went for a crime bill that her husband passed that was, at the time, supported by the African American community. Why would you do this? Because you need to be convinced? Nope - you did it to avoid being convinced.

I'm not indulging you in your dumb game. We have Google now - we can support whatever arguments you want, pro or con, for or against.

[brain5000]

... If you want to get out a scorecard and tick off little checks "this was good"/'this was bad", go ahead. It is easy enough to do. I've got better things to do than to play Spin The Google with you all night.

You have your vote. I strongly encourage you to vote for Bernie. In the end, if you don't get Bernie and you kick and cry and vote for Trump because WAHHH, yes, you're nothing more than a big baby.

[Fugue]

I'm highlighting important pitfalls to her doctrine.

You may want to believe that her failure to produce healthcare reform is just as important as the gaping hole of enabling bank fraud, but that is absurd, to any objective person. The only thing her failure to change healthcare policy proves is that she's not good at it.

And you can have any opinion you want, and dismiss the reasons for my choice of Trump over HC, while calling me names, all you want. It doesn't make you any more sophisticated than a troll. And I already voted for Bernie, thanks. You go ahead and vote for HC, and then possibly start saying "President Trump"; and that regardless of how me or my peers vote, because the polls show she's significantly weaker against Trump than Sanders, and there is no reason to believe she would not weaken further, after Trump attacked her from the left.

[brain5000]

If HC's failure to produce health reform proves she's not good at getting important legislation passed, then the last six years of the Obama administration are also an utter failure - to any objective person.

[Fugue]

"utter failure" - that's your conclusion. Obama was certainly mediocre, and he didn't do a thing about the biggest problems we face, same as Hillary wouldn't, except time is running out.

[Anonymous]

Interesting and very insightful response for a guy your age. I have always considered myself a "thoughtful" conservative. I almost considered voting for Obama in 2008 because I believe in political balance. However when 2012 rolled around I wanted to get him the hell out of there.

Politics is much bigger than the oval office. Congress and local politicians have more impact on our lives than most citizens have the slightest clue about. However the POTUS stands as prominent icon for the culture and zeitgeist of our country. His/her stances and personality DO make a long term impact on society.

I am disgusted with Obama's following choices: inviting a muslim kid to the white house to show his "clock" that LOOKED like bomb, his incessant pushing to make obamacare law, inviting a Army deserter's (possibly traitor) parents to the rose garden, lighting up the white house like a bowl of fruit loops after the SCOTUS ruling (but waited 5 days to lower the flags to half mast after the chatanooga, TN shootings), allowing syrian refugees that could be hiding terrorists into the USA, ad nausem. But that's not the worst of it. It's the fact that hollywood, public education and the main stream media have worshiped him like a demigod just because he is black. It doesn't matter if what race/gender he is. He is a flesh and blood man who is prone to errors and duplicity just like any white man or woman. He is NOT special. I'm also disgusted by how the culture and masses have blinded followed his PC rhetoric to the point I'm afraid of losing my job if I ever publicly posted anything that goes against the liberal tow (I sure as hell wouldn't put this on my FB page). However libs get all the leeway in the world to speak their mind publicly.

Trump wasn't my first choice. He's a bully and he's not proposing resolutions to go along with his draconian ideas. Want to build a border wall? Fine. But what about the decent mexican immigrants who want to come here the right way, but are stuck in government red tape? Want to ban muslims from coming in this country? Fine. But how long and how are we going to decide the which ones have good intentions
or not?

I don't agree with Trump but I UNDERSTAND why he is popular. There is a large segment of Americans who are fed up with political correctness and finally he is giving us a STRONG voice.

[Fugue]

I only overlap with Trump supporters in that HC is a terrible candidate. We differ on the reasons. Sadly, many of them will still attack Obama from the right, driven by the same ignorance that makes people vote for Clinton over Sanders. This is where we disagree. Obama is to the right of Reagan, if we look empirically at his overall doctrine. Every indication is that HC will be a 3rd Obama term.

And I am aware that I might be making a deal with the devil in supporting Trump, but if the intent is for him to beat HC, I am certain you will not gain any politically-foreign support by attacking her from the right, and you will likely lose some support. If there are any left leaning policy positions that your side has (and according to the polls, there are), you should prioritize those arguments. That is HC's weak spot, so that's some free advice.

[WalterRadio]

Hillary represents the worst kind of elitism and corruption in politics. If you look at her rap sheet, it goes way back to Arkansas, Whitewater, Rose Law Firm. Time and again, her corruption gets passed over because people are afraid of the Clintons.

She claims she is for "the little people", but she gave orders at the Whitehouse that the houskeeping staff were to stay out of her sight so she didn't have to look at them. She called her SS protection, people who would take a bullet for her, "The pigs".

I am sure you now see that she is the pocket of Wall Street. You may also know that she has taken many millions of dollars from foreign dignitaries while she was SoS. There is no difference between the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons. It is their political slush fund they use to buy people off and support their own lavish lifestyle. It is exactly like any third world kleptocrisy. She may be doomed, though, because her flippant regard for the law may get her arrested shortly for violating espionage law.

Clinton is not "right wing". You are mistaken if you think she believes in anything. Her entire motivation is her lust for power and money. Everything she says or does is a result of that.

[Fugue]

I can't agree with much of what you say. I don't want to taint and discredit the valid criticism against her with trumped up charges (no pun intended). I'm not familiar with everything you mentioned, but I do know for a fact that the whitewater allegations against the Clintons were probably bogus, as was the Benghazi circus and the ranting about some email server.

If we just focus on the demonstrable realities about her, who her friends are and what her stated policies are, it's 100x more than we need to show how bad she is as a candidate.

Yes, she does want power and money. That's nothing exceptional among presidential candidates. Most of them have been rich people that wanted to feel even bigger. She is already rich, so she wants more money, but especially power. The love of money I would classify as right wing, at least by US standards. "Greed is good" was a line in a Wall Street movie, and people that identify as conservative use it like a motto to be proud of.

[WalterRadio]

I know something about the espionage laws that Hillary violated. I stay out of jail by my complete compliance with them. She is in clear violation. The question is when she will be indicted, not if.

Her friend Blumenthal had a money scheme in Libya and convinced her to intervene to help oust Qadaffi. She was oblivious to the specific lack of support to our people, but she is responsible for the entire situation in Libya. She caused it.

I have a friend from high school who worked in the White House when he was in the military, he has no kind words about her.

No, most presidents are not in it for themselves, they are there to do what they think is best for the country. Hillary is in it for herself. I met George W twice, he is a very nice guy, and personally know about a dozen current and former congressmen. I wrote a few lines of legislation and have had meetings with officials at the WH and State.

No doubt, HRC is a liar and is corrupt to the core.

[Fugue]

I don't know about that. If anything is in contention, it's going to be a weak argument and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. Those sort of conspiracy attacks are middling and will not amount to much. Bush was actually guilty of lies that led to crippling wars, but nothing was ever done about it. Is anything going to happen over some emails? No.

You are actually helping HC by prioritizing those arguments, instead of the stuff she openly admits. The latter is far more damaging policy, anyway. Nobody will give a fuck about some middling about security protocols, including myself. If you think that will be worthwhile, you severely underestimate her.

[Fugue]

"No, most presidents are not in it for themselves, they are there to do what they think is best for the country. Hillary is in it for herself. I met George W twice, he is a very nice guy, and personally know about a dozen current and former congressmen. I wrote a few lines of legislation and have had meetings with officials at the WH and State."

Ok, so you are a Republican apologist. So be it. I am not. Trump is not fooling me, and the den of cronyist filth called the GOP never did. If Bush meant well? Then he was simply a clinical moron that basically gave the presidency to Cheney. I don't even want to know if you defend him. I really don't. If you want Trump to beat Hillary, stop with this capricious stuff, because people like me will consider it nonsense, and you will lose us.

All I care about is considering Trump over HC, for the reasons I have stated.

[Rawrzz]

Hmmm. Interesting perspective. If it does come down to Hillary or Trump, it really is the South Park case of the elections always being between a turd sandwich and a douchebag. Neither one of them appear to have a soul. Hillary is an emotionless corporate pawn who says what she needs to say because that's what people want to hear. Trump is a blithering racist, sexist, psychopathic fool who treats the Presidential election like a reality T. V. show. The truly scary thing is how much support he's gotten. If the Republican nominee would have been Ben Carson or possibly Chris Christie, I would have breathed a least a small sigh of relief. But nope. Cruz and Trump.

But. End of the day. I would rather have Hillary than Trump. She's basically Obama 2.0. You can see the various healthcare organizations that donated to Obama's campaign, in 2008 at least. Ironically, he goes take backsies on his single payer healthcare system which he ran on, now insurance companies suddenly get a lot more government enforced business, and the government gets a bit more in taxes. But the entire country didn't fall apart.

At this point, most hope is lost. As for change. Another 10-15 years and the baby boomers will die off. In my opinion, they are the source of this lunacy. Once they go, things will get better. We'll pick up their mess. I have much more faith in Gen X and Millennials.

[Fugue]

Ben Carson was simply incompetent, in every way. I don't think he would be any better than the rest. Trump as least shows he knows marketing and showmanship. No sensible, independent candidate on the RNC would have made it past the first day. It's totally possible that Trump understands the base and is only marketing his rhetoric in that direction.

The people get the candidates they deserve.

I've yet to hear a cogent argument against Bernie Sanders, and in favor of Hillary Clinton. The democrats thought they were so much smarter and wiser than the Bush crowd, but they've proven to be just as empty and half-witted.

[Rawrzz]

Trump would listen to none of his advisers; Ben Carson accepts that he doesn't know everything. That's the main premise upon which I would have wanted Carson over Trump, as I only paid attention to one of the semi-recent republican debates. Mostly based on character rather than any political measurement. Even if Carson is essentially incompetent, I would have chosen him over Trump. Trump is pretty much incompetent in every way except showmanship. It's like putting a jester on the throne. I'd rather have a. But it's irrelevant anyway, since it's only Trump and Cruz now. Cruz might be even more disassociated from the lower classes than Trump is. But, I don't really pay attention to anything except a couple of frustrating debates, the primaries, and the general election. Nothing else really matters: only serves as a source of frustration, to me.

[Fugue]

First sentence, the premise is pure speculation. Trump certainly listened to someone, when they told him to ease up at the Michigan debate, just like the rest of them.

And let me get this straight: you concede that Carson is incompetent, but you would vote for him him over Trump, because Trump is also incompetent, except for showmanship? Oh kay.

[Rawrzz]

If you want to twist my words like that, sure. You'd make a great politician.

[Fugue]

As would you, but I'd appeal to the intellectual voting block. What you wrote is in plain text. If you want to correct it, go ahead.

[Rawrzz]

Or maybe you could read it at a point when you're not drunk on your own brain.

[Fugue]

"Even if Carson is essentially incompetent, I would have chosen him over Trump. Trump is pretty much incompetent in every way except showmanship."

Your words, not mine. No amount of sobriety can change those words.

[Rawrzz]

Righto pal. You keep that intellectual superiority complex healthy by cherry picking. I'm sure it will make you sleep better at night.

[talloak]

You are too young to remember what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000. Many liberals decided that Al Gore was too conservative and too corporate so they backed Nader. He claimed that Gore and Bush were almost interchangeable. Enough liberals voted for Nader to enable Jeb Bush to steal the election for his brother in Florida. Now, try to imagine how different the entire world would have been if Gore had been elected. No 9/11, no wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, no trillion dollar deficits, no tax cuts for the mega-wealthy, a huge reduction in global warming gases over the last 16 years, the possible avoidance of the second great depression, a liberal Supreme Court (no Citizens United, voting rights reinstated, Republican gerrymandering struck down), etc. Do you get the big picture yet? The damage done is incalculable.

I don't like or trust Hillary either. However Trump is capable of far more harm than even George Bush performed, and that's saying a lot. He could start a world war. He could cancel US debt to China and force a global meltdown far worse than the first Great Depression. Saying that his world-wide destruction may bring about a liberal successor is like saying that Hitler was desirable because he was replaced with a liberal Germany. I'm sorry but the cost for what you suggest is absurdly high.

I don't

[Fugue]

I wasn't aware of the 2000 election in real time, but I read about it, extensively. Your premise is wrong for several reasons.

First, in this case, the alternative is not a useless 3rd party. If Trump doesn't get nominated as a Republican, but instead runs as 3rd party, then it's a similar scenario, but against the Republicans. I'm well aware of W's legacy. I even know he didn't technically win the 2000 election, but it was awarded to him by the supreme court.

Second, it's wrong because I simply disagree with your conclusion that Trump is guaranteed to be worse than HC. Make no mistake that I would never vote for him in the general, if he would keep up the same old bigoted, violence-inducing circus that he's been doing in the primary. If Trump gets nominated, he WILL soften up his rhetoric, and he will attack HC from the left on key issues. And circus or not, he will be right to attack her in that way, on those issues.
HC is not any less doomsday than Trump, and possibly more.

[talloak]

I would never argue that Trump os guaranteed to be worse than W, but that he has the potential to be mamy times worse. He could not possibly be harmless. Clinton could easily br better than harmless but. could not possibly be catastrophic.

What's the point of learning so much about history if you are so willing to relive the worst of it?

[Fugue]

My point is that so is HC. In fact, on some central issues, we already know her policies, proven by her track record, are disastrous.

People keep ignoring the fact that I keep mentioning, I have said this roughly 1000 times. Hillary Clinton is in favor of banks gambling with government-insured depositor money., and patently against banning the practice. This is fuel that created the "too big to jail/fail". crisis that working people are still reeling from, while Wall Street and corporations make record profits. Installing an administion that has ever intention to protect that practice is NOT ANYTHING LESS THAN CATASTROPHIC.

[talloak]

I entirely disagree. Clinton is too much in the employ of the financial sector as you say. However that is basically status quo. That is a far cry from catastrophe. The things that Trump talks about, physically isolating the US, deporting undesirable ethnicities, rounding up Muslims, military actions against Russia, economic war with China, these are potential catastrophes on a scale that Clinton is not capable of making.

[Fugue]

My God. Have you forgotten 2008? I guess you're one of those people cruising the bubble as a comfortable dependent of the status quo, but the rest of us are still feeling it, 8 years later. You can't expect us to play along with your irrational faith in the establishment, particularly when zero was done to prevent it from happening again, with people like HC deliberately blocking efforts to do so.

Go ahead, dismiss the terrible track record and policies of HC with one line, then quickly switch over to the boogeyman that is Trump. It's predictable.

[talloak]

I have zero faith in the establishment. I am well aware of all that's happen over the last decades. I am not nor likely to ever be a Clinton supporter. I can't comprehend someone who equates opposition to Trump as support of Clinton. This is not a binary question. The question here is whether it is worse to elect a member of a deeply flawed system or to elect a fascist who plans to destroy the system outright and rebuild it in his own megalomaniacal image. Do you really believe that the poor will be better off in the chaos that ensues? Do you think that banks will fail to make a profit off that chaos? Can you think of a single historical example where wholesale destruction of a political system resulted in better lives for the majority of its citizens?

[Fugue]

I have made my case, covered your arguments, and given you my prerequisites for voting for Trump. Instead of acknowledging those points, you keep repeating the same things you said from the beginning. The only certain thing is that I will not vote for HC if she runs against Trump. That is certain. You should be fine with that if you're not a HC supporter. But for the 1000th time. If Trump attacks her from the left, I will reward his act. I KNOW IT'S DANGEROUS. The stakes are so high that I am willing to take high risks. Your certainty of a Trump chaos is unproven, and merely based on rhetoric, not policy. There is no guarantee that Trump would be a fascist. There is a guarantee HC will accelerate the plutocracy, and all the massive, crippling problems that entails.

[COCOCHANEL]

911 was plotted way before gw bush was elected...

[talloak]

@COCOCHANEL True. And Clinton specifically warned Bush earlier in 2001 that bin Laden was planning a massive attack using jet liners. Bush's response was to go on vacation. If a leader had been president this may have been prevented or at least the attacks after the first could have been blocked. After he was informed of the dirst attack Bush continued to read his book about goats.

[Fugue]

@COCOCHANEL Bush was warned repeatedly about impending attacks, for months. It's a famous line that Bush told an operative that rang the alarms at Bush's farm 'you covered your ass, now go home'. It's pretty funny if you are a Bush fan.

[COCOCHANEL]

so what would gore or nader have done? how could it have been prevented?

[talloak]

@COCOCHANEL The same way that further attacks were prevented: tighten security at airports, develop plans for what to do in the event of an attack, locate and watch bin Laden's associates, etc. The fist attack may not have been avoided but the second should have been and only was a surprise because Bush and Rice ignored all US intelligence. Whether deliberate or from stupidity it was still criminal. And Republicans pretend that Benghazi was a scandal!

[Fugue]

@COCOCHANEL By not ignoring the warnings for months.

[COCOCHANEL]

”the first attack may not have been avoided”

[talloak]

@COCOCHANEL Are you saying that the second attack was not even worth avoiding?

You defend Bush by claiming that people blame him for all the world's problems. I've never heard anyone blame him for anything he was not directly involved in. By contrast I've heard conservatives blame Obama for all the world's problems. I've yet to hear a single charge that is actually true (or at least specific). They even blame him for the problems that Bush introduced to the world, including Iraq, ISIS, the massive US deficit, even Katrina! Clearly they are projecting the massive failures of their leader on another target.

[talloak]

While Bush has not created all the problems of the world (a great many preceded him) he probably wins the award for the living person who has added more of them. He is directly or indirectly responsible for at least a million innocent deaths. Can you think of another living person who has earned that hideous distinction? And you actually have it in you to defend this mass murderer?

[COCOCHANEL]

you can't even be sure that anything could've been prevented. worse things could've happened. we don't know what would've happened ”if”.

[talloak]

@COCOCHANEL You can justify any wrong action by that argument. A murderer can claim that it was impossible to know that the victim would not die of a heart attack at that moment if he hadn't shot him. And yet even if the victim would have died by natural causes anyway, the shooting would be just as wrong.

[COCOCHANEL]

ok, but you cannot say what could've happened or what will happen

[talloak]

@COCOCHANEL I agree that I cannot say what will or would have happen. Yet right and wrong is not limited to consequences.

[baconandcheese]

I strongly disagree. I respect Sanders as a person, but his ideas would not work with a Republican Congress and seem to be too idealistic. Hillary is a politician, I don't trust her, but she dishonestly supports my views. I was an O'Malley fan, but he made too much sense to stay in the news cycle. Cruz's plans don't make sense (his tax reform plan). Both Cruz and Trump play off of fears that aren't as big of a problem as they are made out to be. Trump doesn't even act like an adult. Trump's biggest selling points aren't as good as they a are made out to be. Good businessman? To an extent, though he was given a business and 1 million USD. He also started multiple failed companies. Speaks his mind? When insulting people. He supported Hillary before and has changed many of his views ( a problem people have with Clinton). He wants to change the system; for someone so against business involvement in politics, he sure got involved as a businessman before running. His xenophobic views give fuel for terrorism and he goes against the values that makes the US great.

[Fugue]

You think Hillary Clinton has Jedi mind trick powers to force a republican congress to do anything progressive? She doesn't want to do anything of the sort, same as Obama. So basically, you're saying Sander's ideas would not fly with a republican congress? So, obviously Hillary Clinton's republican ideas would fly with them, but they would still pretend to go against them, for political theater, like they did with Obama. That is precisely my point. So, tell me again why I should vote for an establishment republican like HC?

[baconandcheese]

Hillary Clinton's republican ideas? Bernie is far left, that doesn't make Clinton a Republican, it makes her more moderate. Congress would be more amiable to her ideas because they aren't as far left, something that you cannot disagree with. Even some democrats would not support Sander's policies. At least with Hillary she has the support of moderates. Also what plans has Sanders laid out? One of the plans I saw on his page was "end police brutality". That isn't a plan it is a goal. And if he were to repeal Obama care I doubt any new health plans would pass. He wants to move forward with his "better" plan forgetting that in the end it is probable that we would move backwards in terms of health care.

[Fugue]

Wow. Where do I start?

Elaborate on which of Bernie's ideas are "far left".

Moderates support her? Who or what are these moderates? Bernie owns the independent vote, consistently. Independent voters seem to have no interest in HC.

What plans has Bernie Sanders laid out? Look it up @ berniesanders. com and don't just cherrypick one headline, when the material is inconvenient. If you want a massive example, he wants to invest in the future of the country through widening access to education. And don't ask me 'who's going to pay for it' if you're not going to ask who paid for the trillions of dollars thrown away on wars, bailouts and their consequences.

[zagor]

What did you like about O'Malley? He was the biggest ass-kisser of every possible traditional Democratic special-interest faction.

[baconandcheese]

O'Malley is a moderate who I respected more than Hillary. I can see what you're saying about most things, but saying Bernie isn't far left is just factually incorrect. He is a self proclaimed democratic socialist, everyone agrees he is far left. Free education sounds fine and dandy, but how are colleges going to manage the influx of new students? Also a country can't be driven by all highly skilled workers.

[Fugue]

O'Malley was a same-old, phony politician, but not one as famous or charismatic as HC. That is why people patently rejected him, because the voting block in this cycle is slightly more sophisticated than the doddering droolers of the past.

[Anonymous]

Every one of the republican challengers is better than Trump. He's winning on the idiot and name recognition vote. The smart votes are split between the other 3.

Bernie Sanders is an absolute joke. He doesn't understand basic economics, has never had a regular job and keeps saying 'free' when nothing is free.

College education for everyone? Yes that's really smart. That's a tax on everyone to pay for something only a portion of the population will use. It will crush the economy.

What would have prevented the 'bubble' from the mortgage crisis would have been teaching the average American what they can and can't afford. Too many low intelligence Americans took loans offered by banks they could not afford. Why is this the banks problem? No one put a gun to the head of people signing the loans.

Most Sanders supporters aren't very smart so these things sound great unless you really understand the facts. He would be an absolute train wreck. In 26 years in office he's never authored a single bill that passed a vote. How crazy is that? Career political waste. Getting free meals for his lack of any substantial contribution.

[Fugue]

Spare me the uninformed or disingenuous rhetoric, Mr Anonymous. Just your implication that an investment in education is for 'a small portion of the population' is preposterous.

[Curmudgeon]

Cruz definitely is better, but Amnesty Rubio is not.

As for the mortgage bubble, playing "Affirmative Action" with the housing market was a guaranteed disaster.

[ManOnFire]

Anyone who would vote for Trump must be clinically derranged. I'm a Bernie supporter, and I know that Hillary would destroy us if she wins, but Trump will make WWIII a certain reality.

This is the guy who's been sued twice by the Justice Department for refusing to rent his hotel rooms to blacks. This is the guy who refers to minorities as "the blacks," "the Hispanics," and "the Jews." This is the guy who's gone bankrupt more than once.

I can't trust this already feable nation in the hands of a total fool pretending he's more financially stable than he really is. Not to mention, he has no good intentions for people of other races. And even the military themselves have said if he becomes president they will not answer to him.

I think you can see where this is going.

[Fugue]

Under which criteria are you finding Trump a worse warmonger than HC?

Did Trump help create ISIS by voting for an illegal war or two?

As far as the minorities rhetoric, that's all it is, at this point. Are you aware that in the 90s, Hillary pushed for policies that ended up causing a record percentage of the black population in prison?

And the centerpiece is her opposition to Glass-Steagall. If you don't think a repeat of the 2008 collapse is serious and an existential threat, you are living in a bubble.

Bottom line is Trump vs HC; rhetoric vs record.

[ManOnFire]

Are you kidding me? Trump has talked about wanting to destroy Arabs! This man will have us all over the globe bombing whoever he hates. Hillary certainly is a warmonger, but she'd be a little more level-headed.

So what minorities say can't be taken seriously is basically what you're asserting. And I'm WELL aware of Hillary supporting laws against young black men in the 90s - she called them "superpredators." But Trump has a clear history of racism and even now has supported violence against minorities. You need to do your research.

[Fugue]

Trump has talked about it, and Hillary has done it. But you go ahead and be swayed by decorum over policy. I am done with that.

[Fugue]

And by "minorities rhetoric", I was referring to the topic of the rhetoric and policy about minorities.

[genuinlysensitive]

@asker don't forget, Hillary voted for the war in Iraq, supposedly without "reading" it. Wow, talk about an incompetent commander and chief. "Oh sorry China, I did give the order to nuke you, but I didn't read it, so it doesn't count." LMAO.

[vishna]

Voting for Trump because something good could happen is reckless, he has done nothing but indicate how terrible he would be as president and how much he would strain ties with our allies, alienate our minority citizens, stir the fires, and condone violence.
Now, this may be great if you're not a minority in America, allie to America, or protester, because he is happy to pay the medical bills of those who do the dirty work for him, then you're great :)
Hillary Clinton isn't a volatile narcissist with no political experience who condones war crimes against the families of bad people.
You can say everything you want about her, but she wouldn't ruin things like he would. She won't divide people like he would. She wouldn't isolate us from our allies.

[Fugue]

I can say everything that's true about her, and you can dismiss it with some trite rhetoric.

[vishna]

If the things about him are true, which they are, it's true. It doesn't matter how much you hear it, the truth is the truth.
If you think the terrible things about him are of no importance than just be more upfront about it, "I'm ok with a candidate that condones violence, xenophobia, and war crimes."

[Fugue]

This is about HC not Trump.

[benthurber]

"She is a right wing candidate."

Are you freaking serious? I realize American politics has moved so far left that centrists look like extremists, but what the frick? You live in modern Anglo-America

Left= more government
Right= less government

If that's something you have trouble with, you should reconsider your participation in political matters. There is a long history of people trying to twist left and right by historical and self-reported claims. Mostly it's liberals trying to associate nazis as "right wing." (Which, compared to communists of the time, would be "right" of them, but not even come near the center of "Constitutional Republic.")

[Cuervo]

I hear you, brother but I don't think the four-legs-good crowd understands this concept.

Left= more government
Right= less government

In fact, of the Right, I heard a talk show host speaking, not of small government but big and less intrusive government. You can't have it both ways. Once you let Uncle into your house, he'll drink all your beer and eat all your Cheetos.

[Cuervo]

Uncle Bob

[Fugue]

Your hypothesis on what defines left vs right is cockamamie foxnews bumper stickers. It's simply incorrect. And even by that definition, it would mean the right doesn't exist in the US.

[genuinlysensitive]

Actually Right=Wall St. can do whatever the fuck it wants because they bought and paid for the candidate.

Left=Wall St. should actually be held accountable.

So yea, she is a right wing candidate bought and paid for by Wall St., anything left that comes out of her mouth, is just rhetoric, like Obama, they are both bought and paid for by Wall St., super pacs.

[cjmtherfcker]

red Nazis or blue Nazis. They are still nazis

[Robbey]

As much as I would love to see a woman become president I can't bring myself to vote for Hillary for essentially your stated reasons.

Trump would actually be worse. As I mentioned elsewhere, there really isn't a significant difference politically between Hillary and Trump. However, Hillary does have considerably more experience and I suspect that she doesn't have quite the ego he does and has a bit more sense and judgement.

I'll not be voting for Sanders either. I'll be voting for Jill Stein.

[Fugue]

Experience means nothing without results. It's just resume padding.

[Robbey]

A solid and in-depth understanding of international affairs and the mechanics of the presidency and congress resonates more with me for a potential president than comparative knowledge of real estate speculation and NYS divorce law.

[Fugue]

It can resonate with you all you want, but that doesn't mean it's proven, so it doesn't mean it's worth ignoring the rest over that one thing.

[Robbey]

What is it that you think isn't proven? That she was a Senator, or Secretary of State, or First Lady?
How do you think Trump is a better candidate?

[bluenose1872]

Doesn't matter about the mechanics of government. They've got advisors for that. It's radical policies they rubber stamp and put their name to that's all that counts. Hilary would privatise anything left that's public for the sake of business. She'd have you paying a private corporation for fresh air and the right to walk on a pavement. Not to mention she's already said she wants access to everybodies private information. She'll bring in total fascism for the sake of profit. It's bad now it'll get a hundred times worse under her. Nobody learn the lesson with her man in charge.

[Fugue]

What isn't proven has been stated several times.

[AleDeEurope]

I can't vote since I'm not American, but I feel your struggle to choose if it comes down to Hillary and Trump.
I don't see Hillary getting America to where it belongs... but I don't see Trump doing that either, he doesn't really say how he's gonna make America great.

Bernie is obviously the best option, and I wish people would see that, instead of voting for a guy that promises something he doesn't know how to achieve, and for a person who's just being elected because of their genitals, and not their brain.

[Fugue]

Yes, Trump is a clown, but Hillary is already vowed to serve her bankster friends, and she is better than Trump at scamming people. More people will believe Hillary Clinton's lies than Trump's.

[Ratiocinative]

Bernie is the most dangerous of all. Hilary and Trump are bad, but at least they're primarily in it for themselves and aren't going to do a while lot to change things as long as they can give a few favors to their friends.

Bernie Claus on the other hand, wants socialism. He's an ignorant fool that refuses to understand that socialism eventually leads to fascism and fascism eventually leads to 10s of millions of government caused deaths and murders.

[Fugue]

@Ratiocinative If you want to debate the policy specifics of Bernie Sanders, by all means, let me know. Elaborate. If you just want to spout ad hominens, have fun.

[Anonymous]

"the mainstream media supporting Hillary Clinton"

"her endless campaign millions sponsored by wall street"

"She is a right wing candidate"

You hit the nail on the head! I am with you, Bernie or Bust! In fact they do have an online pledge called that and they are trying to get one million signatures. In fact if you google Bernie Sanders for President you will find a pic of the latest poll numbers. Sanders crushes all Republican front runners, Hillary looses to all but Trump who she only has a measly one point lead over.

In the mean time keep spreading the truth!

#feelthebern

[9mfeo]

I think that's entirely the wrong decision. Not that I can vote in your elections as a Canadian, but anyone but Trump would be better. We don't want to deal with Nouveau-Hitler. Vote for someone responsible. Literally anyone is less volatile than the corn cob man.

[Fugue]

Someone responsible? That would not be Hillary Clinton, for the reasons I have stated. Is it responsible to protect the sort of practices that already collapsed the economy, so they can happen again?

[9mfeo]

Literally anyone but Trump, who may also be a pufferfish.

[Fugue]

I don't agree with you. My reasons are posted and concrete. I could be dissuaded if someone engaged them.

[9mfeo]

He's volatile and reactionary. He has no experience in politics. His method of solving problems is to threaten to sue people. Do you really want that person running your country and representing you on the international stage? International diplomacy is more important than showboating. He has no qualifications, no platform and no plan beyond bullying minorities. Why is this a more acceptable candidate than the former Secretary of State?

[Robbey]

When you cut away his bluster, his BS, and his crass opportunism, Trump is basically a Clinton Democrat and a major reason why the RNC loathe his candidacy is because he's not a conservative. He's pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, pro-single payer health care, and major donor to both of Bill's presidential runs, both of Hillary's senatorial runs and her presidential run. In no small measure because he's a longtime friend. That said, I agree with the lack of experience.

[Fugue]

Most of what you say on Trump is true, the rest is opinion. But even if it were all true, it still looks worse to me to legitimize a double agent like Hillary.

[Fugue]

@Robbey Experience and no favorable outcome to show for it. That's HC.

[9mfeo]

Hey, if you want to be an international laughing stock causing wars and getting your country destroyed because everyone hates you, go right ahead. I live far enough north that the fallout won't affect me.

[Fugue]

What a trite response. This has all been covered. If you want to engage the specifics of what has been said, feel free, anytime.

[Spirit_Is_Free]

Massive risk - You seem to be going on the premise that Trump will be so bad that there will be a swing to the left and still be anti establishment - The danger in your logic is that people will think we should have gone democratic mainstream and will be looking for that in 2020 so by 2024 republicans will think we need to go back to mainstream to counteract so in 2024 it will be mainstream versus mainstream.
I don't know if it was you who made the question about Hillary and Bernie delegate/super delegate support so as long as current party electoral system stands the establishment will control the elections. Donald may win the republican nomination but for your theory to work he has to win election and his presidency be a roaring success which would make right wing anti establishment de riguer - I don't think that is a scenario you would want.

[Fugue]

Yes, massive risk, under massive threats. Hillary is a long term threat, if people become so complacent that they believe everything is fine. Then "boom".

Yes, your scenario is a possibility, but I find it more likely that people will become complacent under a HC presidency, and they will forget about the fizzing sticks of dynamite under their feet. Although, the unlikely thing I see in your hypothesis is the idea that a Trump win would bolster the GOP establishment. How so? They would essentially be finished, if Trump won. Hell, they might be finished simply by him being the nominee. And why are you saying people would want to go back to the democratic mainstream? That doesn't make sense. Hillary is the mainstream. Her loss would hurt the mainstream cred.

[Spirit_Is_Free]

I think my theory was based on a Trump presidency being so bad that people would think why didn't we stick to the mainstream thus going back to mainstream establishment politics for the 2020 and 2024 elections. If the Trump presidency was a success, people might go for a right wing establishment candidate in the near future. Actually the only sure way I see for a Bernie Sanders type candidate to win is in 2024 is if HC wins in 2016 has a bad presidency, republicans win 2020, have a bad president then by 2024 the democrats may look left anti establishment for their candidate.
As for the GOP establishment collapsing, it would need a successful Trump presidency for that to happen. How the democrats would react to a successful Trump presidency I am not sure but even in that scenario it would be 2024 before a new president who may or may not be a left leaning anti establishment democrat.

[Fugue]

I don't agree that those scenarios are likely.

It's obvious the democratic base has gotten complacent and hopeless, and that they haven't gained any intellectual curiosity since Obama got elected. I don't see how that would improve after another 8 years of mediocrity, when it's just more time for them to get used to it as the new normal.

[oddwaffle]

It doesn't matter. The American are pretty clear on what they want. They don't like what's going on. They are less wealthy, poorer than their parents. The 401k that should have been their awesome retirement is now the one thing keeping them from poverty. Graduates, saddled with mounting studying debts, now find less prospect for jobs. Non-college folks find their job shrinking at an alarming rate. Too many people having to live hands to mouth while a few are living in the billions.

Americans want change. Either a step forward to the future with the liberals or a step backward to good old age with the conservative. Bernie promises a change of the future with hopes and dreams. Trump is blowing on the reality and promises to bring USA back to the good old days. Hillary is a realist and pragmatic, she promises change when she can but her gives the "status quo" feeling.

I don't think any of these guys can give Americans what they want.

[Fugue]

Bernie Sanders is the only one with a proven record.

[oddwaffle]

The important point has been shown with Obama. The guy tried to do a lot of things and without Congress support, most of his stuff didn't turn out right. The president power is more limited than people think. People wants the president to have more power though.

I would place the bet on Trump. It's not because of his insane and downright crazy policies or that he is a jerk. No, it's because the guy will scream like a pig when he doesn't get his way. He will shake up the American politics and force some sort of change. You might like it and you might not. However, the politics would change. I doubt Bernie can do the changes because he would be like Obama.

[Fugue]

Obama didn't try to do crap. That is a myth perpetuated by the establishment, so that you cheer him on. The vast majority of what Obama tried to do was done. With the biggest thing being his passing of Romneycare.

As far as shaking up politics, Bernie Sanders would be better and more experienced at doing that, since that's what he's already been doing for 40 years. But this is about Trump vs HC.

[Northeast106]

Im a republican who voted for sanders in the primary, for exactly the same reasons you stated. Trump may be an egotisitical divisive asshole in favor of eminent domain, but Hillary's record, scandals and criminal history speak for itself. Trump never compromised our national security, none of his actions actually resulted in people dying. If anyone else had the email scandal that hillary went through, they would be in prison. Also, I like how she supported privatized prisons, nafta, and a whole range of issues she allegedly stands against now. Politics is manipulation and short term memory. American voters predominantly don't go by actual records, we go by a candidates latests speech. Her actions dont back her speech, and neither does trump for that matter. In the end, we have two really shitty candidates. Both of which seemed pretty close some years ago.

[Dandeus]

"It doesn't seem like he is beholden to that corrupt system that is racing us towards a cliff."

Beholden to the system? Trump IS the system.

It blew my mind when people lauded him for "exposing" the other GOP candidates for taking money for favors, and his proof was that he was the one who bought the favors, as if the briber is any less complicit than the bribee. If politicians are puppets, Trump is a puppeteer.

Clinton is no progressive, but she's at least a block to the far right lunacy.

[Fugue]

He's been a puppeteer, but he's not in the biggest puppeteer club, which dwarfs the rest, by far. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (maybe).

HC is as far right on the major issues as any traditional Republican. The rest is just pretty words and tone. It's child psychology to screw people over with a nice tone. I'm not a child.

[Anonymous]

Hilary is pathetic. She is one of those women who are ok with their alpha husband fucking other women and turn a blind eye to it.

She's a feminist

starecat.com/.../...lose-husbands-fathers-sons.jpg

She disregards her values and ethics for money. Perfect example is where she was against policies that were beneficial to the the pharmaceutical company until they gave her a big paycheck.

AT LEAST TRUMP CAN'T BE BOUGHT.

[Anonymous]

I'm not an American, but if Sanders doesn't win the nomination, then I hope Trump wins. Because if your country ends up being stupid enough to not elect the man who is clearly the greatest presidential candidate you've had in decades and ever will have for a long time, then you deserve the absolute worst.

[Opinion Owner]

*then I hope Trump wins the election.