Would we really be better off under President Clinton?

[Danny Bateman]

3 hours ago, NUance said:

 

+1.

 

The operative word in your statement is "candidate".  To get elected charisma is necessary.  But once in office, it takes more than mere charisma to follow through on the myriad promises made during any election.  We are finding that out right now.  You can't competently run a country with a Twitter account and a few snappy one liners.  

 

+1 as well. Well said. These are my sentiments exactly.

[RedDenver]

6 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Right. Which is why she was one of the most pitiful general election candidates we've seen in a while. As they say, the only one who could've possibly lost to Trump.

 

I understand why people would identify more with Trump. Though personally I think he's a scummy dirtbag and if I ever caught myself sharing his personality traits I'd probably take a long walk off a short pier.

 

There's a bit of talking past each other in this thread. Seems to be two camps of folks. On one hand, I'm applaud the point you and Guy are making about it being a binary choice.  I found myself in the same boat in 2016. Probably a few more are sympathetic to this argument as well. Being that I was somewhere that had a puncher's chance to be a close district in NE and viewing Trump as such an absolutely unacceptable candidate led me to vote for Clinton. At that point in our electoral system, only one of two people will be president - a third party or indie could only play spoiler. I view it the same as picking a Final Four loser to win the Championship game - it just isn't going to happen. Besides, Johnson was too kooky for me, Stein was a nut too (and probably a Russian pawn. And a grifter.). The third party I liked the most was McMullin even though I disagree with him on a lot of policy. He's a good dude but he had no chance.

 

On the other hand, there's RedDenver, BRB, Enhance, my BC brethren Redux et al. are putting forth about how this system blows and voting third party shouldn't be scorned as irresponsible. To me, they all seem to be arguing for the long game: Our system is perverted by the two-party stranglehold, and reforming it is necessary, even if it means enduring presidents as awful as Trump. The fact someone as bad as him could at all speaks pretty poorly of the electoral system. Heck, some accelerationists probably think Trump will be so bad he'll actually trigger electoral reform as an issue more quickly. Not sure I share that sentiment...

 

Anyhow, the thing is, I'm not sure you nor Guy nor myself would put up any argument to defend our antiquated Electoral College. I personally wold be in favor of ranked-choice voting and/or moving to a popular vote for president. I also think 2 senators for each state puts low population states at a weird advantage. 

 

The question is how do we realistically change the system to one that's more democratic?

Good points.

 

For myself, I'd say getting money out of politics is highest priority to restoring democracy. Because of the Supreme Court rulings, the only way to do this is by Constitutional Amendment, but that's going to take a long time. (As I've mentioned in other threads, the group Wolf-PAC is a non-partisan group working on getting a Constitutional Amendment to get money of of politics.)

 

Of course, I also support ranked-choice voting and replacing the EC with a popular vote.

[Enhance]

35 minutes ago, knapplc said:

To continue the cancer analogy, sure, you had more options in the election.  Jill Stein was homeopathic therapy, Evan McMullin was herbal therapy, etc.

 

You have options when it comes to cancer, too. If your loved one is diagnosed with cancer, aren't you going to choose the best treatment available?

Sure, but your best option for survival may not be mine or anyone else's. People don't often choose a type of therapy out of spite or disdain.

 

You have your reasons for voting for Clinton and, while I disagree with some of the methodology, you're well within your right to weigh those variables as you did. I think it's a disappointing situation but I understand the thought process behind it. My main point is people choosing to weigh things differently than you does not make them irresponsible. A minority voting for a minority candidate because they feel that person best represents their values does not in turn make that person irresponsible.

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

Sure, but your best option for survival may not be mine or anyone else's. People don't often choose a type of therapy out of spite or disdain.

 

You have your reasons for voting for Clinton and, while I disagree with some of the methodology, you're well within your right to weigh those variables as you did. I think it's a disappointing situation but I understand the thought process behind it. My main point is people choosing to weigh things differently than you does not make them irresponsible. A minority voting for a minority candidate because they feel that person best represents their values does not in turn make that person irresponsible.

 

If the results of this election teach us nothing then we deserve another Trump. People can vote their conscience all they want. That vote has consequences, and those consequences don't care about our philosophical beliefs.

[Enhance]

I agree with all of that but borderline leftist propaganda isn't an explanation - it's an excuse. It's an excuse for justifying binarism, fear and failure.

[Guy Chamberlin]

16 hours ago, RedDenver said:

No, even if you are correct and only Trump or Clinton could win, that's a binary outcome, not a binary decision. But the fact that it's a binary outcome is only true if you aren't looking at the circumstances for individual voters, which I'm going to show was only a single outcome in my case. 

 

Because given your premise that only Trump or Clinton could win, I was faced with voting for Clinton, voting for Trump, voting for Stein, or voting for Johnson (ignoring the other candidates for this example). Except my situation is that I live in Colorado and no matter which of those I chose, Clinton would get all the EC delegates from Colorado. So no matter what, my vote would have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election, which means there wasn't actually a binary outcome for who got elected based on my vote - just a single outcome. So instead of basing my vote on an outcome that I could not effect, I chose to base my vote on other factors like one of the third parties getting to 5% for additional federal funds in the next election and the possibility of changing the established parties' policies or candidates, which is why my decision is actually logical and responsible.

 

I voted like that once, for similar reasons, and don't regret it.

 

I still think it's a binary choice in terms of the next President of the United States - which is pretty much the point of the whole exercise. That a vote can be a symbolic gesture, or a tangible asset for federal funding, is certainly a choice, but as you admit the binary outcome was already baked in. 

 

There's also a binary choice of voting or not voting, and that makes a statement, too. But the 2016 election will never be remembered for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, unless it's simply part of a retrospective on why third, fourth, or fifth party candidacies never take hold in America, even when we are faced with the two most disliked candidates anyone can remember. 

 

Hillary had even more of a lock in California than she did Colorado. The reason I didn't opt to make a statement by voting Stein or Johnson is because I thought both of them would actually be terrible Presidents. I would jump on a viable Third Party candidate in a heartbeat.

 

I just wish voting your conscience felt better.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

5 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Bob Dole I don't understand. I desperately wanted him to win and beat Clinton in 1996, but he was flat and boring during the campaign. After he lost, he went on Letterman, where he had a great, charismatic, engaging session.  I almost yelled at the TV, I was so frustrated.  That guy would have beaten Clinton.  

 

Bob Dole was one of the funniest politicians in our lifetime, and famously acid-tongued. He was the perfect backroom arm-twister, which isn't the same skillset as Presidential candidate.

 

It also came out later that Bob Dole had paid for a girlfriend's abortion in 1972, and Bob Dole spent every interview and debate terrified that someone was going to bring it up. 

 

I never cared for Bill Clinton's practiced smarm, but he was the better candidate in 1996. Charisma wasn't the issue. Having been spanked in the '94 midterms, Clinton veered to the right and steered America right dow the center. The economy was booming, government was shrinking, wars were being avoided, and social issues were moving forward at a tolerable rate for most people. Bob Dole didn't have a better plan, he was merely the GOP candidate with seniority.  After losing the election, Bob Dole became a sane and articulate voice for what the GOP should be, but he was largely ignored.

 

If you had to pick an era in America when things were working pretty well across the board, you could do a lot worse than Bill Clinton's second term. 

[TGHusker]

Related:

https://world.wng.org/news-illustrated

The caption says:

You can't outrun your shadow:   

• 
•  
•  

[TGHusker]

Collusion of a different type - however you spell it (Russia or fund raising) it still spells corruption.

 

https://nypost.com/2018/06/09/democratic-parties-accused-of-funneling-84m-into-clinton-campaign/

 

 

Quote

 

Up to 40 state Democratic parties could be implicated in an alleged scheme to illegally funnel some $84 million to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, according to a new report.

A federal lawsuit says the Clinton team and the Democratic National Committee went around campaign finance laws by pouring money into state parties that then sent the funds back to the DNC to help Clinton, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

The Committee to Defend the President, a pro-President Trump PAC, first filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission in December. But the authorities didn’t take action before a required deadline, the group’s campaign finance attorney, who filed the federal lawsuit, told the Review-Journal.

The FEC complaint alleges “an unprecedented, massive, nationwide multi-million dollar conspiracy” in which Dems and Clinton’s camp were “effectively laundering nearly all contributions” given to the Hillary Victory Fund.

That fund is a so-called joint fundraising committee that allowed Clinton to raise money for her campaign and local state parties simultaneously. Possible due to looser campaign finance rules, this type of fund meant Clinton could raise $350,000 or more from a single rich donor.

 

 

[RedDenver]

6 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Collusion of a different type - however you spell it (Russia or fund raising) it still spells corruption.

 

https://nypost.com/2018/06/09/democratic-parties-accused-of-funneling-84m-into-clinton-campaign/

 

 

 

I think we already knew about this during the election. I'm pretty sure it's legal. I mean, it shouldn't be, but this is part of the problem with money in politics.

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I think we already knew about this during the election. I'm pretty sure it's legal. I mean, it shouldn't be, but this is part of the problem with money in politics.

 

We did. And you're right.

 

There are so many ways we've screwed up how elections are supposed to work... it's honestly pretty infuriating.