If the Election was Today

[Danny Bateman]

BRI, BRB... you guys have any thoughts about this McMuffin guy? He at least seems like a guy of decent experience and good character... though that could be just because he's a bit under the radar.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

BRI, BRB... you guys have any thoughts about this McMuffin guy? He at least seems like a guy of decent experience and good character... though that could be just because he's a bit under the radar.

I haven't looked into him, I just looked him up after you mentioned him. It's actually McMullin. I've linked his site so you can check it out.

 

https://www.evanmcmullin.com/about_evan

[Landlord]

I'm not voting since I live in Illinois and my vote literally does not matter.

[TGHusker]

 

BRI, BRB... you guys have any thoughts about this McMuffin guy? He at least seems like a guy of decent experience and good character... though that could be just because he's a bit under the radar.

I haven't looked into him, I just looked him up after you mentioned him. It's actually McMullin. I've linked his site so you can check it out.

 

https://www.evanmcmullin.com/about_evan

 

 

 

After Johnson started to reveal some memory lapse, too much weed Gary??, I'll probably vote for Evan who may be closer to my views anyway. Here is an interesting

article on how he might win Utah and become president as a result. It is a winding twisting road via the House of Representatives:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/

[NUance]

First off, I'm very disappointed in both candidates. Very disappointed. Our political process failed us. That said, I'm leaning towards voting for Trump. Sure he comes off as a cartoonish buffoon. But I suspect he really is a wild card. Would shake things up. He might actually shine a light on some gov't fraud waste and abuse. If he did, it would be entertaining to say the least. And he might actually fix a few things along the way. Did I say how disappointed I am in the choice we have between the two parties?

[Landlord]

But I suspect he really is a wild card. Would shake things up.

 

 

Explain this rationale to any immigrant friends, hispanic friends, african-american friends, woman friends, impoverished friends, or muslim friends and get back to me with how they feel about the possibility of Trump shaking things up.

[NUance]

 

But I suspect he really is a wild card. Would shake things up.

 

 

Explain this rationale to any immigrant friends, hispanic friends, african-american friends, woman friends, impoverished friends, or muslim friends and get back to me with how they feel about the possibility of Trump shaking things up.

 

 

I like how you pull a snippet out of a post and try to call the person to task for it. Explain to me how you read my post but you failed to read this:

 

First off, I'm very disappointed in both candidates.

 

Or this:

Very disappointed.

 

Or this:

Our political process failed us.

Or this:

Did I say how disappointed I am in the choice we have between the two parties?

 

 

Did you even read my post? Or did you, as usual, just read the word "Trump" and go into attack mode?

[Landlord]

I read it, and I understand it, and I'm not attacking you. I'm just pointing out that the mindset of thinking it might be entertaining or good to just blow sh#t up and see what happens comes from a place of privilege and safety, and that we would all do well to think long and hard about how a Trump presidency (which you're endorsing if you vote for it) would effect minorities, oppressed groups, PoC, etc. because they are terrified of what it will do to them.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

But I suspect he really is a wild card. Would shake things up.

 

 

Explain this rationale to any immigrant friends, hispanic friends, african-american friends, woman friends, impoverished friends, or muslim friends and get back to me with how they feel about the possibility of Trump shaking things up.

 

 

I like how you pull a snippet out of a post and try to call the person to task for it. Explain to me how you read my post but you failed to read this:

 

First off, I'm very disappointed in both candidates.

 

Or this:

Very disappointed.

 

Or this:

Our political process failed us.

Or this:

Did I say how disappointed I am in the choice we have between the two parties?

 

 

Did you even read my post? Or did you, as usual, just read the word "Trump" and go into attack mode?

 

 

I read your post.

 

Saying you're disappointed in the choices in no way supports your rationale.

 

Yes. Donald Trump would stand to shake things up. GIven his position slightly right of Nixon and left of Mussolini, I would never pretend that's a good thing.

 

Trump also has zero empathy with you, and doesn't really want the job. The extraordinarily thin-skin he's exhibited throughout his life, and the propensity for rabble-rousing revenge he's engaged in right now should be a tip off that anybody -- including Hillary Clinton -- is vastly preferable in the Oval Office.

 

Any chance I can talk you into not voting at all?

[Undone]

You wouldn't vote third party this year, Guy?

[Guy Chamberlin]

I read it, and I understand it, and I'm not attacking you. I'm just pointing out that the mindset of thinking it might be entertaining or good to just blow sh#t up and see what happens comes from a place of privilege and safety, and that we would all do well to think long and hard about how a Trump presidency (which you're endorsing if you vote for it) would effect minorities, oppressed groups, PoC, etc. because they are terrified of what it will do to them.

 

I think the missing piece for some die-hard Republicans is the likelihood that Donald Trump wouldn't even be good for business.

 

If you were to add up his tax plan, the cost of the Mexican Wall, and the potential price of his ridiculous saber-rattling foreign policies, you would yearn for the fiscal conservatism of the Obama administration.

 

The Economist and other pro-business entities have quietly lined up behind Hillary Clinton. They may not love her, but they hate the "excitement" a petty narcissist and surprisingly sh**ty businessman brings to the party.

 

None of us are in a place of safety right now. Our best hope is that Trump was the last gasp of a generation that mistook entrenched privilege for patriotism.

[NUance]

I read it, and I understand it, and I'm not attacking you. I'm just pointing out that the mindset of thinking it might be entertaining or good to just blow sh#t up and see what happens comes from a place of privilege and safety, and that we would all do well to think long and hard about how a Trump presidency (which you're endorsing if you vote for it) would effect minorities, oppressed groups, PoC, etc. because they are terrified of what it will do to them.

 

Oh if there was even a halfway acceptable candidate across the aisle I would gladly cast my vote for that person. But there's not. And frankly I doubt that the minorities and oppressed groups you mention will be any better off with Hillary in the White House as opposed to Trump. Just because Hillary spouts out a bunch of campaign promises and rhetoric doesn't mean she will actually do anything for these people.

 

It may surprise you to learn that I am actually a registered Democrat. But I don't vote strict party lines. I switch between parties every few years because I don't particularly like either party. Neither party leads in the way it claims its priorities lie. The Republicans are not fiscally responsible. And the Democrats are not socially responsible. (As near as I can tell those are what I think their advertised priorities are.)

 

btw, In the event I do end up voting for Hillary (I haven't entirely made up my mind yet), it would also be solely for entertainment purposes. It would be quite entertaining to have Bill in the White House again with no responsibilities whatsoever. Does my use of entertainment value as a criterion for my vote come from a place of privilege and safety? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's not like I can base my vote on the fitness of either of these bozos to lead. Neither are remotely qualified to do that.

[knapplc]

It would be quite entertaining to have Bill in the White House again with no responsibilities whatsoever.

 

 

SNL would have some great skits, I'm sure. "Bill Clinton After Dark" or something.

[Guy Chamberlin]

You wouldn't vote third party this year, Guy?

 

Oh God no.

 

I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 because I genuinely wanted to support multi-party politics, and didn't want either party to think it had earned a mandate. Perot also looked like a grown up who understood America's fiscally conservative and socially progressive leanings. By the time I pulled the lever, Perot had already had a meltdown and I was left with a pure protest vote. I didn't think the differences between Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush were particularly dire. I also didn't make up my mind until I stepped into the voting booth. None of that applies to 2016.

 

I flirted with a Gary Johnson video a few months ago, studied up on him a bit, realized he was just another side-show.

 

I'm not going to have any problem voting for Hillary Clinton in November.

 

Here's the deal: I never cared for Bill Clinton because he was such a craven politician. Everything was about getting and holding office. I had no idea what he truly believed in -- it was all political calculation. "I never inhaled" pretty much sums him up.

 

So Bill Clinton takes the oval office and immediately gets spanked for Gays in the Military and National Health Care. The craven politician has misread his mandate and proceeds to get his ass handed to him in the 1994 midterms. But the brilliant politician in him co-opts his conservative detractors, and the Clinton administration now champions streamlined government -- not necessarily smaller government -- and supports America's new high-tech entrepreneurial spirit rather than old industry protectionism. He is at once both hawkish and cautious to intervene in foreign entanglements. The social engineering programs are less ambitious and more gently eased into the discussion. By reading the public mood and D.C. backrooms for political calculation, Bill Clinton created an America that most people could live with. And if we're being honest "the Good Ol' Days" fit the 1990s better than most decades.

 

And I think Hillary Clinton understands the political calculation better than Bill Clinton did when he took office.

 

So I will not cast a vote that could conceivably land Donald Trump in the White House. It's insane that it remains a possibility.

 

And Hillary Clinton will govern American in a manner familiar to past presidents -- both Republican and Democrat -- although it will bring little comfort to those determined to go ape sh#t on her.

[Undone]

I gotcha.

I feel we desperately need to disentangle ourselves from the Middle Eastern conflicts. I wish a candidate with solid promise to do so was available for a vote.

Gary Johnson would be that kind of a guy. If the election were today, I'd be casting a protest vote for The Johnson.

 

*EDIT* And note that I said *protest* vote.