• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The 2016 Presidential Primary, Conventions, Election, and Aftermath

What is your political leaning for this election?

  • Democrat

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Republican

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 20.8%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • Total voters
    24
It is what happens in a Democratic Republic. Maybe we need a different system to choose the President, but in this election, it is what it is. So I hope everybody will search their conscience and hold their nose if they have to but vote for the person who is most likely to make a positive difference or at least do less damage.

I honestly don't see how anybody who believes the last eight years have not been great for America could double down on that with a vote for Hillary. And I hope they don't choose to spend their vote in a way that will help her. I'm sure many will disagree with me on that.

It is what we were told in 2008 and 2012. Here we are, yet again, and nothing has changed.
For a while I was hoping that both Sanders and Trump may become so disgruntled they would make some move. But alas, the race seems to have been decided before it began. Superdelegates negating the people's vote, and the GOP may just find some loophole to do the same.
 
Disappointed.

The GOP had a massively talented bench, a number of candidates who could propose meaningful reforms that would address underlying issues for the middle class and to some extent for those in the working class. But the voters rejected experience, calm temperament and instead took pride in inexperience, anti-intellectualism, and rage.

The main counter I would propose there is that the voters didn't fully do this - a plurality did, in a widely divided field.

The old saw is that there are three tickets out of Iowa. There were still six competing by South Carolina. Trump won all 50 Delegates with 32.5% of the vote. And none of the other candidates were focusing on attacking the Front-Runner, a bizarre circumstance.
 
:shrug: it's not an A/B test, however. It's multiple-choice, with fill-in and opt-out options. I can vote (or not) for whomever I like, nor am I obligated (morally or otherwise) to vote for either particular party. Since Trump has no claim to my vote, not voting for him is no more a vote for Hillary than the government letting me keep some of my income is the same as them giving it to me.

You have the right to vote for whomever you choose or to not vote at all. Nobody is arguing with that.

I am just arguing for those with common sense and who really do want the best for the country to use that common sense when they cast their vote and don't waste it.
 
The main counter I would propose there is that the voters didn't fully do this - a plurality did, in a widely divided field.

The old saw is that there are three tickets out of Iowa. There were still six competing by South Carolina. Trump won all 50 Delegates with 32.5% of the vote. And none of the other candidates were focusing on attacking the Front-Runner, a bizarre circumstance.

A plurality stuck to Trump, but meaningful minorities stuck with Cruz or Trump-lites like Carson, and Fiorina.

In other words, a majority of GOP voters either chose radical populism, or fusionist conservatism with a few BIG shakes of populism.

There was very little appealing to me with the majority of the party's primary voters. I think the Party is like watching a zoo. I feel similarly with the Democrats too, but I'm more frightened by the Republican voter at the moment.
 
You have the right to vote for whomever you choose or to not vote at all. Nobody is arguing with that.

I am just arguing for those with common sense and who really do want the best for the country to use that common sense when they cast their vote and don't waste it.

:shrug: I don't think that either of these candidates are common sense, or would do well. Between the two, Hillary Clinton may be marginally less destructive for the country. She would certainly be less destructive for the GOP and Conservative movement. Nor do I think it's a waste of a vote to vote third party. If (for example) a Libertarian candidate pulls in 15% of the vote, well, that's going to force the GOP to move more in a small-government direction in 2020 if they want to recapture those voters. That's a move worth making. In the meantime, it will also help keep Trump from wrecking the GOP for decades more than he's already going to.
 
Last edited:
A plurality stuck to Trump, but meaningful minorities stuck with Cruz or Trump-lites like Carson, and Fiorina.

In other words, a majority of GOP voters either chose radical populism, or fusionist conservatism with a few BIG shakes of populism.

I'm fine with Republican voters being ideologically consistent. That's the broad trend across both parties at current. It's the populist know-nothingism and angry nihilism that is indefensible. I reiterate my long, lonely call for the imposition of a national poll-test, to be based on the Citizenship Exam.
 
I haven't been "excited" about a candidate my entire voting adulthood. I was conflicted in my first election, not because I was excited about Clinton, Bush, or even Perot but because I was kinda meh about the whole thing. I was also voting with a completely different mindset as a young adult than I do now.
This is easily one of the more "interesting" (in that Chinese proverbial sense) elections.
I am, once again, not excited about any particular candidate. I was cautiously hopeful for Sanders but that ship has sailed.
Since it will likely be Trump or Clinton, I will probably scribble in Marilyn Vos Savant.
But that's me.

Ideally, the best thing would be to scrap the archaic and corrupt partisan system and vote for individuals in all elections.
I don't see this happening, of course, the Bipartisan Empire likes limiting the people's choices and keeping its power base.
 
It is what we were told in 2008 and 2012. Here we are, yet again, and nothing has changed.
For a while I was hoping that both Sanders and Trump may become so disgruntled they would make some move. But alas, the race seems to have been decided before it began. Superdelegates negating the people's vote, and the GOP may just find some loophole to do the same.

In 2008 people voted on emotion. Most Republicans had to hold their nose to vote for McCain and some were just not up to it. So they didn't vote or they voted for the populist Obama. Well, most of us now know what that got us and God help us if we are that emotionally driven and foolish again. The GOP establishment put Romney into the slot in 2012 and that was a mistake. Not because Romney wasn't qualified. He was. But his negatives were just too high. And again the people went with their emotions instead of their common sense.

This time I hope we make a much better choice. Since all the rules have been broken, so many millions have snubbed their collective noses at the political party powers and are going with their instincts.
 
I'm fine with Republican voters being ideologically consistent. That's the broad trend across both parties at current. It's the populist know-nothingism and angry nihilism that is indefensible.

As you know I'm both moderate big government with invigorating state and local level innovations mixed with establishment management orientations.

As such, when I see either party's base suggesting that upheaval is the course to good governance, I recoil. I get even more angry if folks argue that the best person to destroy the systems in place is someone who has neither done maintenance work on the systems, nor has any knowledge of how to safely destroy an existing system.

So, frankly, the GOP voter base to me is quickly becoming an existential concern. The Dems aren't there yet, but I see the ambition is there.
 
As you know I'm both moderate big government with invigorating state and local level innovations mixed with establishment management orientations.

As such, when I see either party's base suggesting that upheaval is the course to good governance, I recoil. I get even more angry if folks argue that the best person to destroy the systems in place is someone who has neither done maintenance work on the systems, nor has any knowledge of how to safely destroy an existing system.

That's where I tend to step off the bus.

Are you familiar with Chesterton's Fence?
 
In 2008 people voted on emotion. Most Republicans had to hold their nose to vote for McCain and some were just not up to it. So they didn't vote or they voted for the populist Obama. Well, most of us now know what that got us and God help us if we are that emotionally driven and foolish again.

I don't know if He will. But that seems to be the way the GOP is going. :(

Usually it's the Democrats who want to Fall In Love and the Republicans who instinctively Fall In Line. This year, that seems a bit reversed.
 
Other will not bother voting on the Presidential spot, complete waste of time, will vote on all the other positions and issues up for a vote.
 
That's where I tend to step off the bus.

Are you familiar with Chesterton's Fence?

I'm not familiar with it. I had only recently become acquainted with Chesterton, myself, and haven't had the time to read him. Funny fellow, he seemed, though.
 
I'm not familiar with it. I had only recently become acquainted with Chesterton, myself, and haven't had the time to read him. Funny fellow, he seemed, though.

:) I think you will find him appropriately whimsical. I can't drink while reading Chesterton - one gets too dizzy. That being said:

Chestertons Fence

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it...
 
:) I think you will find him appropriately whimsical. I can't drink while reading Chesterton - one gets too dizzy. That being said:


Yes, I saw a performance by a gentleman portraying him, which allowed his purported mannerisms and digressions show through. It also allowed his humor to be at the forefront of his point.

I like that little entry, because articulating the rationale for the current use and its current or potential or original benefit gives you a better appreciation for what one ought to do to improve the situation the "fence" was created for in the first place.
 
It is what happens in a Democratic Republic. Maybe we need a different system to choose the President, but in this election, it is what it is. So I hope everybody will search their conscience and hold their nose if they have to but vote for the person who is most likely to make a positive difference or at least do less damage.

I honestly don't see how anybody who believes the last eight years have not been great for America could double down on that with a vote for Hillary. And I hope they don't choose to spend their vote in a way that will help her. I'm sure many will disagree with me on that.


I agree with your first paragraph completely. Here's an article directed at Sanders supporters, but the same would hold true with the NeverTrump people as well.

Why it's the duty of every Sanders supporter to vote for Hillary - AMERICAblog News

There’s a common misconception that elections are job interviews; and that candidates need to “earn” our vote, as if we’re doing them a favor by putting them in office. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Elections are selfish. They’re not about the candidates, they’re about us. They’re about choosing someone who will have inordinate influence over our lives and our livelihoods for the next four years.

To the degree that the job metaphor is apt, picking a president is more like picking a nanny for your kids. Except in this case, it’s down to two candidates, and one is going to get hired. Your only options are to pick one, pick the other, or don’t pick either and let someone else make the choice for you.

To take the analogy a bit further, let’s call the first nanny Hillary. As hard as you try, Hillary just doesn’t move you. You see, there was another nanny named Bernie, and you adored Bernie. But Sadly, Bernie didn’t make the cut. So now you’re left choosing between Hillary, who doesn’t excite you, and another nanny named Donald, who is categorically crazy and hates your kids.

Your only choice is to hire Hillary, hire Donald, or let some stranger choose which of the two is going to have ultimate say over the most important thing in your life.
 
You like the Democrat agenda better? Does it make any difference to you that the GOP establishments fears Trump even more than the Democrats do?

No?! Trump is a lunatic. Racist, fear-mongering, illiberal, megalomaniac strong-man that'd be better fit for a third-world banana republic.
 
I agree with your first paragraph completely. Here's an article directed at Sanders supporters, but the same would hold true with the NeverTrump people as well.

Why it's the duty of every Sanders supporter to vote for Hillary - AMERICAblog News

I like that, but it discounts the reality of people's opinions and positions. There are those who staked themselves out early and firmly for one candidate or the other. They are so in the bag for that individual, staked so much of their personal rep on him/her, that if they aren't nominated there are a range of reactions that aren't decided logically. Revenge voting plays into that range, and from what I see there's going to be a lot of that this time around.
 
:shrug: I don't think that either of these candidates are common sense, or would do well. Between the two, Hillary Clinton may be marginally less destructive for the country. She would certainly be less destructive for the GOP and Conservative movement. Nor do I think it's a waste of a vote to vote third party. If (for example) a Libertarian candidate pulls in 15% of the vote, well, that's going to force the GOP to move more in a small-government direction in 2020 if they want to recapture those voters. That's a move worth making. In the meantime, it will also help keep Trump from wrecking the GOP for decades more than he's already going to.

Perot got 17% of the vote in 1992. And he didn't force anybody to do anything. We are not going to reform the Democrats or Republicans by any means other than infusing them with people who think differently. They are one huge party of political elites and opportunists who don't really care who the President is. So long as they can stay where they are, they increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth and they only have to throw their various constituents enough bones to keep them complacent. Hillary Clinton is one of them and she won't make even a ripple of positive change.

Trump likely will which is why it terrifies them to think of him having that kind of power.
 
No?! Trump is a lunatic. Racist, fear-mongering, illiberal, megalomaniac strong-man that'd be better fit for a third-world banana republic.

Why is it that millions and millions and millions of us are seeing it different than you see it though?
 
Why is it that millions and millions and millions of us are seeing it different than you see it though?

Because most of them are prejudicial against Mexicans and Muslims; support the idea of indiscriminately bombing the Middle East; and think it's funny to make fun of disabled people.
 
Because most of them are prejudicial against Mexicans and Muslims; support the idea of indiscriminately bombing the Middle East; and think it's funny to make fun of disabled people.

And there the wheels fall off.

I know a LOT of Trump supporters or people who will vote for Trump if he is the nominee, and that would include many here at DP, some posting in this thread and a whole bunch of others. I would guess that you would have to look hard among all those millions and millions and millions of Trump supporters to find anybody who is prejudicial against Mexicans, Muslims, would approve indiscriminately bombing anywhere, and who are not compassionate and considerate of disabled people. But when somebody characterizes all of us like that, I have to think there are some latent or maybe not so latent irrational prejudices driving the critic.
 
Perot got 17% of the vote in 1992. And he didn't force anybody to do anything.

You don't think so? How many Republicans have argued for raising taxes since?

We are not going to reform the Democrats or Republicans by any means other than infusing them with people who think differently.

And that's why I supported the Tea Party, and will support conservatives down-ticket. I simply won't support Trump, because having him as POTUS candidate means that he gets to take the GOP in the opposite direction of where I want it to go - towards a nationalist, big-government, authoritarian, liberal proto-fascist endpoint.

They are one huge party of political elites and opportunists who don't really care who the President is. So long as they can stay where they are, they increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth and they only have to throw their various constituents enough bones to keep them complacent. Hillary Clinton is one of them and she won't make even a ripple of positive change.

I would, with relief, happily accept Status Quo at this point. If we could retain the Senate and only see four more years like the last two, I think that would be the best of all plausible outcomes.

Trump likely will which is why it terrifies them to think of him having that kind of power.

:lamo What makes you think this? :) His lifetime of Crony Capitalism? His tendency to see policy as a way to reward friends and punish allies? His claim that the way to lead is just to make deals deals deals? His instinct towards big government liberalism?

Trump isn't terrifying with power "because he would stop Crony Capitalism and people profiting off of politics" (that's what he's done his entire life). He's scary with power because he is a narcissistic bully with little to no understanding of the proper functions of government, the emotional stability of a toddler, a penchant for violence, and even less respect for the Constitutional restrictions on power than the current White House resident.

Why is it that millions and millions and millions of us are seeing it different than you see it though?

Millions and Millions also think that the moon landing was faked, and that George Bush knew about 9/11. Some of them are so nuts they believe in Birtherism, that you have to treat women like ****, and that Bush faked the WMD evidence to lie us into war.
 
And there the wheels fall off.

I know a LOT of Trump supporters or people who will vote for Trump if he is the nominee, and that would include many here at DP, some posting in this thread and a whole bunch of others. I would guess that you would have to look hard among all those millions and millions and millions of Trump supporters to find anybody who is prejudicial against Mexicans, Muslims, would approve indiscriminately bombing anywhere, and who are not compassionate and considerate of disabled people. But when somebody characterizes all of us like that, I have to think there are some latent or maybe not so latent irrational prejudices driving the critic.


:shrug: if/when you choose to support that for POTUS, then you are at least saying that you are willing to accept these things. You (along with the rest of us conservatives) will indeed be tarred with that brush.


That being said, you wouldn't have to look that hard at all. Not all Trump supporters are white nationalists, but all white nationalists are Trump supporters.
 
Back
Top Bottom