Would we really be better off under President Clinton?

[Fru]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

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.

 

Exactly my point. Wouldn't it be good to have one that would actually be held accountable to checks and balances?

 

Does anyone really believe that Trump will be held accountable by any other branch? Does anyone really believe that Republicans will find their spine when he fires Mueller or pardons himself? 

[knapplc]

16 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

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.

 

Out of curiosity, which were the "smart sounding words?"

[Fru]

7 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

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.

 

True, it's not a perfect balance or check on powers. But let's be real. Hillary would have been much easier to make a lame duck one term President. 

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

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

 

I wonder. I think people so dislike her that no matter how much better of a politician/campaigner she was, she wasn't going to increase turnout. It's really hard to get motivated to go vote for someone you personally don't like. 

 

But maybe that's what you mean by "being a better politician." 

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, Fru said:

 

True, it's not a perfect balance or check on powers. But let's be real. Hillary would have been much easier to make a lame duck one term President. 

 

 

Agreed. But cycling back to the OP, there is a question of whether that would be better. I think probably yes. Clinton for 4 years then not-Trump-Republican from 2020-2024 would have been preferrable.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

I wonder. I think people so dislike her that no matter how much better of a politician/campaigner she was, she wasn't going to increase turnout. It's really hard to get motivated to go vote for someone you personally don't like. 

 

But maybe that's what you mean by "being a better politician." 

Yes, that's what I meant when I said better politician/campaigner.

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I wonder. I think people so dislike her that no matter how much better of a politician/campaigner she was, she wasn't going to increase turnout. It's really hard to get motivated to go vote for someone you personally don't like. 

 

But maybe that's what you mean by "being a better politician." 

 

 

Yes. Part of her not being a good politician is she's not personable/relatable.

 

I think Trump is relatable in his anger (real or not) at Democrats and political correctness. Even though he shouldn't be relatable to the working class.

[Fru]

Just now, Moiraine said:

 

 

Agreed. But cycling back to the OP, there is a question of whether that would be better. I think probably yes. Clinton for 4 years then not-Trump-Republican from 2020-2024 would have been preferrable.

 

I believe it'd have been better. Better doesn't necessarily mean good, which I think some folks are confusing. Like I said in an earlier post, if you had to get diagnosed with the stomach flu or pancreatic cancer, both are bad, but one is certainly better. 

[Enhance]

23 hours ago, knapplc said:

Of course! I said that several posts ago.  We knew what Trump was. Every vote not for Hillary was a vote saying that a person was OK with Trump in the White House.

 

That's the point I've been making all afternoon. 

 

You didn't have to be happy to vote for Hillary, or even like it. I hated it.  But that was the responsible vote for America, and I made it.  Given the choice again, I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Forgive me if I missed a response to what I'm about to say but, to me, this viewpoint is fundamentally opposed to the idea of democracy and is a prime example of what's properly wrong about elections in our country. Condoning this type of behavior feels wrong.

 

I did not vote for Trump or Clinton and I, proudly, would vote for neither candidate again. A vote is a voice, of which we can all agree, and what that voice is saying is certainly up to interpretation. My vote was for a candidate I genuinely supported. Spinning this into how it was ultimately a 'vote for Trump' feels like pure propaganda. This ultimately suggests any vote that doesn't conform to major party lines or societal norms is a wasted vote.

 

Although this may accurately describe how our elections tend to unfold, this is a disappointing and unacceptable circumstance.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

Forgive me if I missed a response to what I'm about to say but, to me, this viewpoint is fundamentally opposed to the idea of democracy and is a prime example of what's properly wrong about elections in our country. Condoning this type of behavior feels wrong.

 

I did not vote for Trump or Clinton and I, proudly, would vote for neither candidate again. A vote is a voice, of which we can all agree, and what that voice is saying is certainly up to interpretation. My vote was for a candidate I genuinely supported. Spinning this into how it was ultimately a 'vote for Trump' feels like pure propaganda. This ultimately suggests any vote that doesn't conform to major party lines or societal norms is a wasted vote.

 

Although this may accurately describe how our elections tend to unfold, this is a disappointing and unacceptable circumstance.

 

How is it undemocratic to prevent a horribly unfit candidate to occupy an office by voting for a less unfit candidate?

 

Regarding the bold, it is not an opinion I hold of most elections, just of this specific election, and construing it as a blanket statement on all elections for all offices is not accurate. 

[Redux]

24 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Out of curiosity, which were the "smart sounding words?"

 

sorry, forgot the...

[knapplc]

Just now, Redux said:

 

sorry, forgot the...

 

Clearly.

[TGHusker]

^^^

[Enhance]

Just now, knapplc said:

How is it undemocratic to prevent a horribly unfit candidate to occupy an office by voting for a less unfit candidate?

 

Regarding the bold, it is not an opinion I hold of most elections, just of this specific election, and construing it as a blanket statement on all elections for all offices is not accurate. 

A core value of democracy is popular sovereignty and giving people the right to vote for the candidate they feel is best fit for a job. Popular sovereignty is not about picking between two parties or casting votes out of spite. It's also not about forcing people into binary decisions. That's fundamentally opposed to the idea of democracy regardless of whether or not you believe one candidate is unfit for office over another. 

 

As for the other part, I believe you believe what you're saying. However, it feels like you're ignoring the ramifications or precedence set by these decisions. I believe it's disingenuous to pick and choose when this type of behavior is acceptable.

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Enhance said:

A core value of democracy is popular sovereignty and giving people the right to vote for the candidate they feel is best fit for a job. Popular sovereignty is not about picking between two parties or casting votes out of spite. It's also not about forcing people into binary decisions. That's fundamentally opposed to the idea of democracy regardless of whether or not you believe one candidate is unfit for office over another. 

 

As for the other part, I believe you believe what you're saying. However, it feels like you're ignoring the ramifications or precedence set by these decisions. I believe it's disingenuous to pick and choose when this type of behavior is acceptable.

 

So... you are only and ever required to vote for the candidate you feel is best suited for the job, and you're never allowed to make a defensive vote against a particular candidate, and if you do, you're being undemocratic?

 

Help me follow this logic.