Like I said, he's a demagogue. There's not as much need for the demagoguery once he's in the White House. Further, he's going to have certain Republicans that are going to join the Democrats to fight him every step of the way. Not too worried - not that much more than usual at least.
Let's ignore the obvious fact that Donald Trump is a narcissist that cannot take the slightest amount of negative criticism toward himself - because you certainly already have ignored this - and focus on the fact that your argument is Donald Trump will change his behavior after you have rewarded his behavior through positive reinforcement by giving him exactly what he wanted.
And you're sitting there thinking, "Yup! That definitely makes sense in my mind!"
Magickware has this covered pretty well. People should be able to speak their minds on matters of civic importance, even if their ideas are unpopular. If they are false, if they are hateful (and many of Trump's ideas could be classified as at least one of the two) then expose them. But what has been happening on college campuses for years now, and what is happening in many other venues and what is happening to Trump - being chased from major cities by threats and violence - these things I do not accept.
So you believe we should endorse racism, homophobia, bigotry, and misogyny?
Because THAT is what Donald Trump represents, and to elect Donald Trump is not merely to condone, but to openly encourage these positions.
Because in the general they have no hope of beating Trump if I vote for them.
Why does that make them illegitimate candidates?
As for why I can't vote for a libertarian: I believe their government objectives are moronic (their social policy is fine, but not uniquely libertarian). As for why I can't vote for the green party: It's clear they can't run a party at the moment, I don't don't think they'd be good stewards of our government and their dog whistling to anti-science factions I'm very uncomfortable with.
Ok, "I don't think they'd do a good job" is a reason for illegitimacy.
I could write someone in, but it'd be equivalent to not voting at all
Y'know, for those of us talking about whether or not the Republican party is finished, we should bear in mind that we're talking about this in a post-Ronald Reagan world. Ronald Reagan being the guy that won with the highest electoral college total ever after having won every state except Minnesota. You will notice the Democrats are still around.
So yeah, I think to speculate the Republican party is finished is a little premature to say the least. Clinton won't win by a landslide victory, even if she won every battleground state.
I wish I felt I could make that kind of stand. If I were a republican, I'd probably do similar. But, I honestly do feel I have to vote against Trump and there's only one legitimate option for that
I think if you're looking for a person to get the Republican party to set aside social conservativism and become a socially liberal, fiscally conservative party that would also bring Democrats into their fold, that person is not Donald Trump, but Bernie Sanders.
Bernie is a controversial figure within the Democratic party, and I believe his outspoken socialism would alienate many, particularly fiscally conservative Democrats.
We're talking about a man who has no morality, a man who is purely obsessed with himself and his own self gain, a man who constantly lies, who has neither the requisite knowledge to be president nor the intellectual curiosity to achieve such knowledge, and who cares nothing about the truth nor anything but his own poll numbers. We're talking about a man whose ego is paper-thin and whose temperament results in him flying off the handle if he's even slightly attacked. This is a man who has been accused of sexual assault and rape. A man who has been accused of being a con man. A man who changes his positions constantly. A man who has not only made bigoted, sexist, and racist comments, but advocated policy decisions along those lines. A man who does not understand the value of NATO, who advocates nuclear proliferation, who speaks flatteringly of Putin, who wishes to infringe on the First Amendment to make it easier to sue those who speak out against him, who promotes unconstitutional policies, and who refuses to accept the will of the American vote.
Minor issues? ******* really?
Clinton is corrupt, is a liar, and is to many the embodiment of all that is wrong with Washington. I can understand this position. Trump's still worse.
make it easier for third parties to get federal funding and onto debate platforms
It's already easy for third parties to get federal funding and onto debate platforms. The fact that no third party in this country seems to be able to do that is the point. It's a reflection on the third parties.
Now would be a good time to point out that our country is not actually a true democracy, but a republic. This is for a reason, as during our Founding Fathers' time, democracy actually was a word with a negative connotation, evoking images of mob rule, and they deliberately based their government around the idea of a republic to prevent the people from gaining too much power.
Now, when the connotation of democracy shifted to positive, I don't actually know. But unfortunately, now we have people criticizing our government for not being democratic enough, when in fact that was the entire point.
So really what Magicman is saying is that this is a failure of a republican (small r) system of government. Or "representative democracy." The point is, the inherent weak point in any system in which people vote is that you open up your government to the possibility of the people voting REALLY stupidly. Trump is a key illustration of this, and it's why we have so many ways in which to distance the government from the people, such as having it be run by representatives: people don't always do smart things.
My argument against this is that while Trump is an illustration of what the Founding Fathers pretty definitely would not want to happen, Trump's very likely failure to seize power demonstrates that we're not too far gone, as at least we're intelligent enough to see through Trump.
Which is nice, as I would REALLY like it if the American experiment continued for a substantial length of time. If we collapsed before we even hit the 300-year mark it would just be embarrassing.
This election all but proves that democracy has failed because America is too stupid to stop this from happening.
I wouldn't go that far. Yes, America has proven to have a population of extremely, extremely stupid people, which has resulted in Donald Trump becoming the Republican nominee. But Donald Trump's campaign has tanked, he's right now set to become the least popular and least successful Republican candidate in a long time, and as that's pretty much the result we hoped for when he became the head of the party ticket.
Doesn't change the fact that he's still the nominee, and that is a problem, and it is worrying for what it says about our country, but that being said, think about how many times in history when the popular demagogue actually seized power. If anything, that makes me hopeful for America if it turns out in November that we are an example in history in which the popular demagogue lost horribly, that the people were smart enough to obstruct his way to victory.
Granted, we'd still have Hillary as president, and that's unfortunate, but most of us agree she's better than Trump, and frankly if Harding or Grant were running on the Democrat ticket against Trump, we'd still vote for them.
I'm not worried about the Russians corrupting our election system. I'm worried about the people working internally within that system being the ones corrupting it. IE, the people who write the software, oversee the security of the machines, and such.
I'm not understanding why people are upset about the mere suggestion that our election process is actually free from corruption.
"The mere suggestion"? I hope you're lifting those goalposts with your knees and not your back, they are heavy.
The Trump campaign is not merely suggesting that there's corruption going on. Trump is saying outright that he's losing because the media and the Democrats are rigging the election. And that's bull***** and anyone who knows facts knows this.
Honestly, if there is an issue, I'd suspect it has more to do with election fraud rather than voter fraud. For instance, there's some interesting video testimony from a computer programmer who stated flat out that he had specifically created a program designed to electronically "flip the vote" in favor of whichever candidate the user wanted to win.
I assume Limbaugh's point is that focusing on consent is a bad thing, right? I certainly don't agree with that, but his quote actually seems like a pretty accurate description of how socially liberal people view the world.
Except it isn't. While I have no doubt there are liberals who indeed regard anything between consenting people as permissible, I do think that in no way do most people regard things like incest, marital infidelity, and cannibalism, to name a few, as being acceptable. For Limbaugh to say that is ridiculous.
It's a complete warping of the central issue, which is not whether or not anything with consent is acceptable, but the fact that nothing is acceptable without consent, because that's what rape is. Sex without consent? That is the definition of rape. Sexual actions without consent? Sexual assault. It's not that everything is permissible with consent so much as nothing is permissible without it. We're not splitting hairs over some technicality, that's one of the most important and fundamental factors in determining whether or not something is a rape or other type of sex crime.
So Limbaugh mocking people bringing "the rape police" when something without consent occurred, as though this were some overreaction as opposed to exactly what in the **** a proper reaction to someone raping another person to be, is horrifying. The answer is yes, you should be calling the cops when sex happens without someone willingly consenting to it. That's what the hell a rape is.
Now, we can go on to discuss what is acceptable when consent is involved, but that's a separate issue. Which is another problem with Limbaugh's argument. He's trying to argue that for liberals to object to sex acts when no consent is involved versus accepting just about any sex act when consent isn't involved is hypocrisy. But even in the case of someone who hypothetically were to actually believe this, how is that hypocrisy? It's only hypocrisy if you, as I believe Limbaugh does, believe that the Bible is the sole arbiter of what is or is not socially acceptable.
But even you believe that, why the hell is Limbaugh downplaying consent as being an important thing? Especially when scores of Republicans are leaving the party because of Trump's actions on that very grounds? Regardless of whether or not you believe consent or lack thereof should be the only determining factor in whether or not something is a sex crime, it's still a determining factor. So who's really the hypocrite here?
Holy crap, that's real and is an actual quote. Damn. That's one of the most appallingly stupid things I've heard said this election. Which makes it one of the most appallingly stupid things I've heard said.
Are you freaking kidding me? Pointing out something wrong on a list you made is not "cherrypicking ridiculous things," Ljoss, it's pointing out something wrong on a list you made. You made an error, acknowledge that you're wrong.
No, we don't. You might not like Trump for your own reasons, but you've outright stated that if you weren't going to vote Gary Johnson, you'd vote Trump just to stick it to all the SJWs, the "SJWs" in this situation being the people who have the gall to stand up for gay marriage, lack of racial and religious tolerance, and the idea that people should not be able to shoot black people and get away with it. Wow. Yeah, I can see why you think our nation's dialogue got hijacked. To be clear, I have no problem with going against extremists in that camp, and have, but there are undeniably problems going on in this country with regards to bias against race, religion, and gender, and to deny that is absurdity, and to say, "Well, yes, I presume there are," in the sort of abstract sense is absurdity, because they're all over the news.
This is really the phenomenon I'm talking about. For all of your discussion about how libertarian you are, you defend Trump even though Trump has outright proposed Constitutional violations. Clamping down on freedom of the press? The return of stop-and-frisk? And then there's the defense of bias against Islam, even when Gary Johnson himself doesn't agree with you.
Now, I don't want to turn this into a thread about Ljoss, but I'm bringing this up because it directly ties into my point. You have outright stated that you would vote Trump just to stick it to all the people who are bringing identity politics into the political dialogue, in a time when there are major issues facing minorities, including but not limited to, a president who is undeniably sexist, and while we can debate whether he's actually racist/bigoted or just pretending to be, proposing policies that undeniably are, AND which infringe on the Constitution. So why would you support that? This is where anyone who supports Trump should ask himself whether it's because of legitimate reasons, or if it's because maybe, just maybe, that Trump supporter might actually be biased in those very ways.
Why not judge Crooked Hillary by the same standards, then?
WE ARE. There are large swaths of people who are voting or planning on voting Clinton who would not otherwise because her opponent is worse. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but this election has redefined battleground states. First of all, there are no "swing states," because Trump could win every battleground state and still lose the election. It's no longer a battleground for winning, it's a battleground for how bad the GOP will lose with Trump at its head. Case in point: ARIZONA is a battleground state right now.
And you're sitting there thinking, "Yup! That definitely makes sense in my mind!"
Astounding.
How much denial do you have to be in?
Aren't you anti-gay marriage?
So you believe we should endorse racism, homophobia, bigotry, and misogyny?
Because THAT is what Donald Trump represents, and to elect Donald Trump is not merely to condone, but to openly encourage these positions.
Ok, "I don't think they'd do a good job" is a reason for illegitimacy.
Why?
So yeah, I think to speculate the Republican party is finished is a little premature to say the least. Clinton won't win by a landslide victory, even if she won every battleground state.
Why are the others illegitimate?
Bernie is a controversial figure within the Democratic party, and I believe his outspoken socialism would alienate many, particularly fiscally conservative Democrats.
Minor issues.
We're talking about a man who has no morality, a man who is purely obsessed with himself and his own self gain, a man who constantly lies, who has neither the requisite knowledge to be president nor the intellectual curiosity to achieve such knowledge, and who cares nothing about the truth nor anything but his own poll numbers. We're talking about a man whose ego is paper-thin and whose temperament results in him flying off the handle if he's even slightly attacked. This is a man who has been accused of sexual assault and rape. A man who has been accused of being a con man. A man who changes his positions constantly. A man who has not only made bigoted, sexist, and racist comments, but advocated policy decisions along those lines. A man who does not understand the value of NATO, who advocates nuclear proliferation, who speaks flatteringly of Putin, who wishes to infringe on the First Amendment to make it easier to sue those who speak out against him, who promotes unconstitutional policies, and who refuses to accept the will of the American vote.
Minor issues? ******* really?
Clinton is corrupt, is a liar, and is to many the embodiment of all that is wrong with Washington. I can understand this position. Trump's still worse.
Now, when the connotation of democracy shifted to positive, I don't actually know. But unfortunately, now we have people criticizing our government for not being democratic enough, when in fact that was the entire point.
So really what Magicman is saying is that this is a failure of a republican (small r) system of government. Or "representative democracy." The point is, the inherent weak point in any system in which people vote is that you open up your government to the possibility of the people voting REALLY stupidly. Trump is a key illustration of this, and it's why we have so many ways in which to distance the government from the people, such as having it be run by representatives: people don't always do smart things.
My argument against this is that while Trump is an illustration of what the Founding Fathers pretty definitely would not want to happen, Trump's very likely failure to seize power demonstrates that we're not too far gone, as at least we're intelligent enough to see through Trump.
Which is nice, as I would REALLY like it if the American experiment continued for a substantial length of time. If we collapsed before we even hit the 300-year mark it would just be embarrassing.
I wouldn't go that far. Yes, America has proven to have a population of extremely, extremely stupid people, which has resulted in Donald Trump becoming the Republican nominee. But Donald Trump's campaign has tanked, he's right now set to become the least popular and least successful Republican candidate in a long time, and as that's pretty much the result we hoped for when he became the head of the party ticket.
Doesn't change the fact that he's still the nominee, and that is a problem, and it is worrying for what it says about our country, but that being said, think about how many times in history when the popular demagogue actually seized power. If anything, that makes me hopeful for America if it turns out in November that we are an example in history in which the popular demagogue lost horribly, that the people were smart enough to obstruct his way to victory.
Granted, we'd still have Hillary as president, and that's unfortunate, but most of us agree she's better than Trump, and frankly if Harding or Grant were running on the Democrat ticket against Trump, we'd still vote for them.
The Trump campaign is not merely suggesting that there's corruption going on. Trump is saying outright that he's losing because the media and the Democrats are rigging the election. And that's bull***** and anyone who knows facts knows this.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/
You do know IDs expire, right?
It's a complete warping of the central issue, which is not whether or not anything with consent is acceptable, but the fact that nothing is acceptable without consent, because that's what rape is. Sex without consent? That is the definition of rape. Sexual actions without consent? Sexual assault. It's not that everything is permissible with consent so much as nothing is permissible without it. We're not splitting hairs over some technicality, that's one of the most important and fundamental factors in determining whether or not something is a rape or other type of sex crime.
So Limbaugh mocking people bringing "the rape police" when something without consent occurred, as though this were some overreaction as opposed to exactly what in the **** a proper reaction to someone raping another person to be, is horrifying. The answer is yes, you should be calling the cops when sex happens without someone willingly consenting to it. That's what the hell a rape is.
Now, we can go on to discuss what is acceptable when consent is involved, but that's a separate issue. Which is another problem with Limbaugh's argument. He's trying to argue that for liberals to object to sex acts when no consent is involved versus accepting just about any sex act when consent isn't involved is hypocrisy. But even in the case of someone who hypothetically were to actually believe this, how is that hypocrisy? It's only hypocrisy if you, as I believe Limbaugh does, believe that the Bible is the sole arbiter of what is or is not socially acceptable.
But even you believe that, why the hell is Limbaugh downplaying consent as being an important thing? Especially when scores of Republicans are leaving the party because of Trump's actions on that very grounds? Regardless of whether or not you believe consent or lack thereof should be the only determining factor in whether or not something is a sex crime, it's still a determining factor. So who's really the hypocrite here?
Well, they did that in 2008 as well with Sarah Palin as the running mate to John McCain.
The real problem is it is the very base of the GOP that is bringing the party down.
No, we don't. You might not like Trump for your own reasons, but you've outright stated that if you weren't going to vote Gary Johnson, you'd vote Trump just to stick it to all the SJWs, the "SJWs" in this situation being the people who have the gall to stand up for gay marriage, lack of racial and religious tolerance, and the idea that people should not be able to shoot black people and get away with it. Wow. Yeah, I can see why you think our nation's dialogue got hijacked. To be clear, I have no problem with going against extremists in that camp, and have, but there are undeniably problems going on in this country with regards to bias against race, religion, and gender, and to deny that is absurdity, and to say, "Well, yes, I presume there are," in the sort of abstract sense is absurdity, because they're all over the news.
This is really the phenomenon I'm talking about. For all of your discussion about how libertarian you are, you defend Trump even though Trump has outright proposed Constitutional violations. Clamping down on freedom of the press? The return of stop-and-frisk? And then there's the defense of bias against Islam, even when Gary Johnson himself doesn't agree with you.
Now, I don't want to turn this into a thread about Ljoss, but I'm bringing this up because it directly ties into my point. You have outright stated that you would vote Trump just to stick it to all the people who are bringing identity politics into the political dialogue, in a time when there are major issues facing minorities, including but not limited to, a president who is undeniably sexist, and while we can debate whether he's actually racist/bigoted or just pretending to be, proposing policies that undeniably are, AND which infringe on the Constitution. So why would you support that? This is where anyone who supports Trump should ask himself whether it's because of legitimate reasons, or if it's because maybe, just maybe, that Trump supporter might actually be biased in those very ways.
WE ARE. There are large swaths of people who are voting or planning on voting Clinton who would not otherwise because her opponent is worse. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but this election has redefined battleground states. First of all, there are no "swing states," because Trump could win every battleground state and still lose the election. It's no longer a battleground for winning, it's a battleground for how bad the GOP will lose with Trump at its head. Case in point: ARIZONA is a battleground state right now.
EDIT: Donald Trump doesn't even know when the election is. For ****'s sake, how is ANYONE justifying voting for this guy?