Would we really be better off under President Clinton?

[Redux]

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

...no

 

We have evidence that people very, very close to Trump were colluding with a foreign government.  We have confessions and convictions in an ongoing investigation.  Prior to the election, we were already looking into Trump's Russia connections. 

 

Take off the partisan blinders.  Maybe it would help if people disliked both Trump & Hillary, not just one or the other, so they could see the problems with either one. 

 

Yes, Hillary is bad. Trump is far, far worse. 

 

If you can't see that... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

You disagree with me politically, and have been more than vocal about it for more than a year now.

 

Knowing that, it's not surprising you'd make up nefarious statements like partisan blinders about my posts. I have no interest in defending my statements against such allegations.

 

You remain, as you usually are in these discussions, wrong.  But you will believe whatever you want.  So it goes.

[Big Red 40]

I could see being sick of the status quo though i disagree that the Whole country (3 million more voted for the other gal) thinks Trump was in any way a fix for that. The staus quo is largely the way it is because money, and corporate interests control everything including the government. Why would anyone think that putting a stereotypical rich guy in that office change anything.

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

You disagree with me politically, and have been more than vocal about it for more than a year now.

 

Knowing that, it's not surprising you'd make up nefarious statements like partisan blinders about my posts. I have no interest in defending my statements against such allegations.

 

You remain, as you usually are in these discussions, wrong.  But you will believe whatever you want.  So it goes.

 

While I'm sure you think that's very clever, the stark difference in how we approach political discussions makes this a hollow form of plagiarism. 

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

It worked both ways. Many of Trump's votes were anti-Hillary votes. Like, a substantial percentage. I heard some numbers on the radio, but couldn't find them in my halfassed Google search.

 

We ran the least-liked candidates in history against each other. 

 

 

Which is why the 2 parties are way more to blame than any voter. Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump. I have relatives who voted for Trump who would have voted for Sanders, who is further left than Clinton, because they hate Clinton.

[RedDenver]

12 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

I could see being sick of the status quo though i disagree that the Whole country (3 million more voted for the other gal) thinks Trump was in any way a fix for that. The staus quo is largely the way it is because money, and corporate interests control everything including the government. Why would anyone think that putting a stereotypical rich guy in that office change anything.

Mark Blyth wrote this article a while back that tries to explain why people voted for Trump and how it's tied to what he terms Global Trumpism.

Quote

 

The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.

 

In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them. 

 

The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It’s also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun.

 

EDIT: This also explains @Moiraine's claim that her relatives who voted for Trump would have voted for Sanders.

[Guy Chamberlin]

30 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Except it is.  Like we literally cannot peek into another reality to see how things would actually be.  We can only assume.

 

I mean, maybe.  Again, we can't know.  We can only assume.  And those assumptions may be right.

 

Can we at least agree that the presumptions and adjectives you served up are terribly flawed?

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Here's the irony: America is really going to miss the status quo.

 

Then they're going to blame the wrong people. 

[Big Red 40]

@RedDenver

I could see,with that mentality, electing a revolutionary militant, or nonconformist to lead that revolution. Trump is exactly what they would be revolting against. Hes a  rich guy, who surrounds himself with other rich people, and is indebted to many other rich people worldwide. 

I don't see any revolution happening any time soon in this country anyway, especially an armed one. People are too polarized and self centered to band together and overthrow anything IMO

We already live in an oligarchy where a few elites control everything . I think a  well functioning government that actually cares about the general population , and makes policies to protect/help them , is our best chance to keep the elites from taking it all. 

[Redux]

31 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

While I'm sure you think that's very clever, the stark difference in how we approach political discussions makes this a hollow form of plagiarism. 

 

No need to be nasty using all those smart sounding words.  You believe your vote for Hillary was a cruise missle targeted against Trump in the defense of America.  I find that comical.

[Redux]

10 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Can we at least agree that the presumptions and adjectives you served up are terribly flawed?

 

We cannot.  I just made some general statements.  The jist was that we would be trading one handful of problems for another.  Now, before we focus on my hyperbolic unit of measurement, we can't actually measure whose handful would be bigger because hypothetical and all that.

 

Again, one issue for another.  Tit for tat.  Nothing gained, it's all the same government regardless of what carnival barker they trot out in front of us.

[Fru]

One reason I believe we'd have been better off with Clinton is that with her, the office of the President would have been held in check since Republicans would have still been in control of Congress and the Senate. 

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, Big Red 40 said:

To me, the whole smug, corrupt, unlikable thing that's used to denounce Clinton could be used to a much greater extent with Trump. I cant think of a more corrupt , egotistical, smug, and extremely unlikable person than Trump. 

More important to me is which candidate is going to surround themselves with quality people, provide diplomacy,  well thought out policies, and work to improve the lives of the general populace. I don't think Trump has done any of those things either, Hillary would have been the better choice on those criteria.   

I can agree with all of this.  The first sign that Trump really didn't know how to pick the right people (regardless of his made up image from his TV show) was his pick of Carson for HUD!!  Ok Carson for Surgeon General - I could understand that - but for HUD - give me a break.  While I understand A Texas governor for Energy Sec - I don't understand Perry to be the right texas gov for that job.  Pruitt made sense from a philosophical position - matching Trump - but not from an ethical position as it has been clearly shown (to my Oklahoma dismay - as he was the Ok AG). 

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, Fru said:

One reason I believe we'd have been better off with Clinton is that with her, the office of the President would have been held in check since Republicans would have still been in control of Congress and the Senate. 

 

 

lol. Good point.

 

My only argument is with some of the executive powers they have no say in. And some of Obama's that were unravelled. (Both problems with using it). But Obama didn't really have a choice.

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

The first sign that Trump really didn't know how to pick the right people (regardless of his made up image from his TV show) was his pick of Carson for HUD!!  Ok Carson for Surgeon General - I could understand that - but for HUD - give me a break.

 

 

 

 

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, Fru said:

One reason I believe we'd have been better off with Clinton is that with her, the office of the President would have been held in check since Republicans would have still been in control of Congress and the Senate. 

And if Clinton was a better politician/campaigner she would have increased the Dem turnout, which may have flipped the Senate majority.

 

If either the Senate or the House was held by the other party, then the President is significantly less powerful, which is usually better.