The 2016 Presidential Primary, Conventions, Election, and Aftermath

[Zyphlin]

Say the choice is between A, the less than optimum but better choice, vs B the worse choice. Those who just can't appreciate A enough to vote for him/her but who simply will not vote for B choose instead to vote for C or they don't vote at all. If enough do that, then B will win by default.

This assumes that you view Choice A as a "better, but less optimum" choice than B, as opposed to viewing "A" and "B" as similarly bad choices.

Both A and B have horrible economic views that will damage this country.
Both A and B have horrible judgement as it relates to the constitution, putting legitimate question as to the damage any judicial nominee they appoint could cause.
Both A and B have been proponents of expanding substantially the governments involvement in providing universal health care.
Both A and B have been proponents of banning types of firearms.
Both A and B have a history of looking out for themselves first and foremost at the expense of anything around or under them.
Both A and B have glaring personality flaws that brings into question their ability to be President.

The primary question I ask myself before supporting ANY presidential candidate is do I think there is a legitimate chance that they will significantly damage the foundational ideals the country is built upon and do significant harm to the countries future. If the answer to that is "yes", then that immediately puts them as a "No" from me. On a point value of 0 to 100, that puts them at an instance 0 with no chance to get more points. In which case, there is no such thing as them being "better" than another, because 0 = 0 in all instances.

For me personally, if I come to a conclusion that Candidate A and Candidate B both fail at that, then what few things I may agree with either of them on is entirely irrelevant, because neither are viable choices.

It's like setting two houses on fire and telling me "pick one to live in". Sure, House A may have a better paint color or a floor plan I like a little bit better, but ultimately they're both ON FIRE and thus completely and utterly unlivable, so neither is "better" in relation to which one I will live in, even if there is a superficial difference between them.

 

[Zyphlin]

---

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 the same thought process as me and who really do want the best for the country to use that common sense How I Think when they cast their vote and don't waste it.

Fixed that for you.

Contrary to what people often do in a very self centered fashion, how any individual person personally thinks is not inherently "common sense".

It could just as easily be argued as "common sense" to not use your one primary method as a citizen to indicate that you support and endorse an individual's ability to lead this country to promote, enable, and elect an individual you inherently believe will do harm to this country.

Indeed, it may be argued as "common sense" to some that to vote for someone you think will bring harm and damage to the country IS WASTING IT.

 

[upsideguy]

It depends who the GOP nom is. I'm #NeverTrump, so if it's him, I'll be headed Third Party.

Well, it is Trump, so it might be time to tell us where specifically you are going.

 

[Zyphlin]

: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.

And see; here's where the thinking you described earlier just fails so miserably. They assume since you're a conservative and a Republican that you just must have this unthinking zealous obedience to the party and that your vote is somehow owed to, and owned by, said Party. That there is no feasible way you can even fathom a situation where the non-Republican candidate could be a better option, and therefore if you weren't going to vote third party you'd automatically vote for "their guy".

But yes, as you just pointed out, there's absolutely ways...when taking a long term view...that someone such as yourself could actually view the situation where Clinton is actually the PREFERABLE candidate out of the two in a long term view, and if you were somehow FORCED to vote for one or the other, you could end up pulling the lever for Hillary. So your vote for the 3rd party could be argued as much, if not more, as taking a "vote away" from Hillary as it would be taking a vote away from Trump.

But no...you're conservative and thus are a slave and servant to the Republican Party in the minds of the trumpeters, and as such you are a vile heretic for giving your vote to someone other than him.

 

[Zyphlin]

some were just not up to it.

And not surprisingly, it's some of these who are the loudest in terms of being angry that people are doing the same thing they did in 2008.

That's what's ABUNDANTLY hilarious.

So many Trump supporters talk about the "Silent Majority" and how Trump will win because he's going to turn out all these people that just refused to vote before for people like McCain and Romney.

And yet, despite the fact that their entire strategy is built on the backs of people who refused to vote for a ****ty candidate in the past coming out to vote for their guy, they want to act indignant and antagonistic to people who are refusing to vote for a ****ty candidate this time.

"We're going to turn all those people out who got pissy and refused to vote for 'your guy' in the past elections and that's how we're going to win, so you just need to deal with it and not be pissy and vote for 'our guy' this time".

Also, it's kind of ironic watching your tacitly support and approve of the Trump candidacy while going on about how one of Romney's problems were his "negatives were just too high".

 

[Ntharotep]

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.

Actually this is almost entirely rhetoric BS, sorry to be so blatant.
Trump *IS* Clinton. He *IS* Obama. If Trump is elected then my prediction is he will not get any of his more "out there" ideas passed, he will face opposition from Congress the likes of which has never been seen, and he will be "forced to be Centrist" once he realizes this or he will use this as an excuse because he is ALREADY Centrist and is just feeding his followers lines to get the vote.
As an aside, the entire country of Mexico did not insult him so he does insult those who don't insult him.

I have no obligation to "hold my nose" (spelled "settle for what you get"). Absolutely to hell with that and to hell with anyone telling us who we are responsible to vote for, overrated celebrities and government panderers both.
I won't "settle" and I won't be told I have to settle.

Marilyn Vos Savant 2016 eace

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.

I agree. I don't see most Trump supporters as racist or religious bigots. I see most Trump supporters as people who don't want Clinton in office.
Unfortunately, that is a sad often repeated way of voting. We know the definition of insanity right?

 

[Frank Apisa]

I am not voting in the poll, because I do not like the wording of the choices.

I AM voting for Hillary in November...and will do so with a big smile on my face.

I wish Ted Cruz were the Republican candidate...because I think the Dem down ticket win would be much larger than with Trump there. And Trump might even pull out a win...where Cruz is a sure loser.

I just do not want the Republicans in the Oval Office. They do enough trouble in the congress.

Actually, I hope the House stays in the hands of the Republicans...although I want the Senate to go back to Dem control.

 

[cpwill]

There is not a single candidate, on either party, more responsible for debasing this election than Donald Trump.

I accept that as your opinion and don't fault you for it. There are millions and millions of us out here who disagree with you though.

Who is more debasing than the guy who mocked the disabled, encouraged violence against protesters, and compared his opponent to a child molester?

 

[cpwill]

And not surprisingly, it's some of these who are the loudest in terms of being angry that people are doing the same thing they did in 2008.

That's what's ABUNDANTLY hilarious.

So many Trump supporters talk about the "Silent Majority" and how Trump will win because he's going to turn out all these people that just refused to vote before for people like McCain and Romney.

And yet, despite the fact that their entire strategy is built on the backs of people who refused to vote for a ****ty candidate in the past coming out to vote for their guy, they want to act indignant and antagonistic to people who are refusing to vote for a ****ty candidate this time.

"We're going to turn all those people out who got pissy and refused to vote for 'your guy' in the past elections and that's how we're going to win, so you just need to deal with it and not be pissy and vote for 'our guy' this time".

Bingo. The same people who swear up and down that Trump is going to put states like New York and Pennsylvania into play are the ones who turn around and instantly insist that, if he loses, it's #NeverTrump's fault. Hey, if he's such a great candidate, he doesn't need us.

Also, it's kind of ironic watching your tacitly support and approve of the Trump candidacy while going on about how one of Romney's problems were his "negatives were just too high".

Earlier she was saying how bad it was that Cruz.... was rude to protesters... because apparently being crass to protesters just, you know, unacceptable....

 

[cpwill]

Sorry but I just don't respect those enough who would erroneously tar people with that brush and won't acquiesce to them. One of the surest ways to lose my support is to use that kind of ugly tactic. IMO it is because people are sick and tired of that kind of politics of personal destruction and childish schoolyard calling people names that is making people thumb their nose at it and go for the candidate who also rejects that kind of hatefulness.

Earlier today, Ted Cruz confronted a half dozen or so Trump supporters across the street from where he had a meet and greet event at an Indiana restaurant. Instead of graciously acknowledging them and telling them that Trump wants to do this and so do I. . .here is how I would do it differently. . .or something to that effect, he berated the group with hateful statement after hateful statement about Trump. How could these people possibly support somebody like that? Wrong approach. That's a sure way to make people defensive and dislike you a lot. The news cameras got all miserable seven minutes of it. The Trump supporters came out of it looking a whole bunch better than Cruz did.
Cruz is a brilliant man and a champion debater. But he sure isn't very smart about how to bring people to his side and persuade them to his point of view. He probably would have done a lot better if he had not continually shot himself in the foot that way.

Wait. Are you referring to this?




Because the only person I see being a dick in this video is the dude Cruz is talking to.


In fact, Cruz is pretty respectful, in the face of some real dickishness, throughout this exchange. Were you being sarcastic?

 

[cpwill]

I have been watching both men very closely for some time now. Trump sometimes comes across as almost childishly quick in his retorts when somebody insults him, but he has always been that way and I think his supporters know that is just his MO and accept it. And we see a candidate who really is light hearted, having fun, and enjoying the process.

Cruz on the other hand comes across as moody, dark, sullen, angry, and his kind of insult seems more grown up, yes, but much more mud slinging and petty.

So, I saw in the news today that Donald Trump is now claiming that Ted Cruz's father was connected to the JFK Assassination, and it reminded me of this post. Given that Trump has, at various times, variously called his opponents pathological, liars, compared them to child molesters, argued that they weren't even real Americans, etc., what has Cruz done that you think amounts to greater amounts of mudslinging? Given that Trump has made fun of the way that Kasich eats and that Fiorina was too ugly to be voted for, where has Cruz been more petty?

 

[Lovebug]

So, I saw in the news today that Donald Trump is now claiming that Ted Cruz's father was connected to the JFK Assassination, and it reminded me of this post. Given that Trump has, at various times, variously called his opponents pathological, liars, compared them to child molesters, argued that they weren't even real Americans, etc., what has Cruz done that you think amounts to greater amounts of mudslinging? Given that Trump has made fun of the way that Kasich eats and that Fiorina was too ugly to be voted for, where has Cruz been more petty?

Pettiness makes people look childish. I don't care which of the candidates does it. Hillary looks like a bumblebee, Trump's hair looks yellow, Cruz is Canadian, Kasich this, Sanders that. I wish the candidates would focus on facts, discuss the platforms, make themselves stand out based on their merits instead of acting like spoiled little brats in the sandbox.
Our election process reflects as much. Making a candidate into something someone thinks they should be must be a lucrative career. Kinda like puppet master. What must they wear, where should they serve ice cream or BBQ, take the subway? Can they flip pancakes? What should they drink or how should they walk? Who cares? Only the gullible are impressed by the shaking of hips, the fanfare and the pretense. Try being real, honest, yourself. Stop reading and start speaking from the heart. Have a spine.

 

[cpwill]

Pettiness makes people look childish. I don't care which of the candidates does it. Hillary looks like a bumblebee, Trump's hair looks yellow, Cruz is Canadian, Kasich this, Sanders that. I wish the candidates would focus on facts, discuss the platforms, make themselves stand out based on their merits instead of acting like spoiled little brats in the sandbox.

I strongly concur. Sadly, we seem to be in a plurality in this country - the rest of the country being divided between those who are fine with pettiness in both directions (and see it as a "part of the fight"), and those who approve of pettiness so long as it attacks their political opponents.

Our election process reflects as much. Making a candidate into something someone thinks they should be must be a lucrative career. Kinda like puppet master. What must they wear, where should they serve ice cream or BBQ, take the subway? Can they flip pancakes? What should they drink or how should they walk? Who cares? Only the gullible are impressed by the shaking of hips, the fanfare and the pretense. Try being real, honest, yourself. Stop reading and start speaking from the heart. Have a spine.

Do we not want fanfare, pretense, and hip-shaking, now? Will we not punish those politicians who tell us hard truths that we prefer not to hear, instead of entertaining us with bread and circuses?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Actually, I think we have a fair amount of agreement.

But it remains to be seen how he uses his power. However, I too think it will be in a relatively benign manner, being for the people and against the parties.

The man has a colossal ego for sure and that, in a weird way, encourages me as he is not one who will want to go down in history as a worst or terrible President. And I think he will do his damndest to make sure that doesn't happen.

The truth is we have never elected the 'right' candidate. With his racist views and some other attitudes about things, Abraham Lincoln couldn't get elected today. Every candidate is a product of his culture and time and as yet we haven't nominated nor elected a single perfect person. There hasn't been a saint in the lot. Every single one has things to commend him/her and things to condemn him/her. All have their moments of nobility all have feet of clay at times.

The best we can do is to vote for the person that we think has the right stuff in him or her and hope the best that is in that person is the one who shows up on inauguration day.

 

[AlbqOwl]

This assumes that you view Choice A as a "better, but less optimum" choice than B, as opposed to viewing "A" and "B" as similarly bad choices.

Both A and B have horrible economic views that will damage this country.
Both A and B have horrible judgement as it relates to the constitution, putting legitimate question as to the damage any judicial nominee they appoint could cause.
Both A and B have been proponents of expanding substantially the governments involvement in providing universal health care.
Both A and B have been proponents of banning types of firearms.
Both A and B have a history of looking out for themselves first and foremost at the expense of anything around or under them.
Both A and B have glaring personality flaws that brings into question their ability to be President.

The primary question I ask myself before supporting ANY presidential candidate is do I think there is a legitimate chance that they will significantly damage the foundational ideals the country is built upon and do significant harm to the countries future. If the answer to that is "yes", then that immediately puts them as a "No" from me. On a point value of 0 to 100, that puts them at an instance 0 with no chance to get more points. In which case, there is no such thing as them being "better" than another, because 0 = 0 in all instances.

For me personally, if I come to a conclusion that Candidate A and Candidate B both fail at that, then what few things I may agree with either of them on is entirely irrelevant, because neither are viable choices.

It's like setting two houses on fire and telling me "pick one to live in". Sure, House A may have a better paint color or a floor plan I like a little bit better, but ultimately they're both ON FIRE and thus completely and utterly unlivable, so neither is "better" in relation to which one I will live in, even if there is a superficial difference between them.

I don't argue with a thing you say here and that's a really good argument by the way.

But it really doesn't address the issue does it.

If both houses are on fire and are the only shelter available, and you must seek shelter somewhere, you're simply screwed. You have nowhere to turn. No options. And you will suffer the consequences through no fault of your own unless of course you helped set the fires.

But if both houses are seriously flawed--one has bad plumbing and an impossible floor plan and no storage and the other is riddled with termites, the décor is ghastly, and the roof leaks--but they are the only shelter available to you when you desperately need shelter, then you have to pick one. Otherwise you will suffer the consequences of your refusal to make a choice and the person to blame for that is you.

 

[Zyphlin]

But it really doesn't address the issue does it.

I guess I just disagree on that point.

But if both houses are seriously flawed--one has bad plumbing and an impossible floor plan and no storage and the other is riddled with termites, the décor is ghastly, and the roof leaks--but they are the only shelter available to you when you desperately need shelter, then you have to pick one.

No you don't. You accept they both suck, you acknowledge you have no preference between the two, and you simply go with the one that is still standing at the point when you HAVE to choose.

Because that's the thing, in your scenario, the point where you "Have to pick one" doesn't actually exist. You never HAVE to choose between two presidential candidates. You have to ACCEPT one, once they're elected, but that's it.

So taking your example of the two houses...

I already have Shelter while I'm waiting to make the choice between the one with the ****ty plumbing and floor plan and the other has termites and a leaky roof. And ultimately, one of those two houses are going to crumble to pieces. So I can either make my choice now, and either accept that by my own choosing I either moved into a ****ty house that stayed standing or I moved into a ****ty house that fell apart....or I could simply wait, refuse to choose either, and move into the one that eventually is still standing making it abundantly clear to the landlord my ass is out of there as soon as I can be.

You keep wanting to make this some kind of example where YOU MUST pick one or the other; it isn't. You keep wanting to make this some kind of example where YOU MUST feel one is better than the other; you don't.

Yes, there are consequences you must suffer for your refusal to make a choice and the person to blame for that is you. SIMILARLY, there are consequences you must suffer for your choices that you make, and the person to blame for that is you.

If I feel that both candidates will significantly harm this country and significantly undermine the foundational principles upon which it was created, then I will GLADLY suffer the consequences of not helping one of those ****s get into office more than I'll suffer the consequences of actually HELPING one of those ****s get into office.

See, that's the difference.

NOT casting your vote for one is not HELPING the other get elected; it is simply harming that one in being elected. To HELP the other, you actually have to VOTE for the other. The ONLY way that doesn't work is if you are guaranteed or required to vote for the other guy if those were the only options.

But that's not the only options

You can vote for one
You can vote for the other
You can vote for a third party
Or you could stay home

If YOU personally don't have any qualms with saying "I support this person and what they will potentially do to this country, and I'm putting my voice and vote as a citizen in support and approval of this person and their actions" then that's more power to you. Nothing wrong with that. But to hell with any person who thinks that a citizen should be shamed, forced, or obligated to cast their vote and give their support to someone they honestly feel will be harmful to this country.

If faced with helping one enemy of this nation or helping another enemy of this nation, I instead choose to help neither and harm befalls my country; I would sleep soundly knowing that I did not AID that harm from happening, and did all I possibly could individually to stop that harm from coming.

Same thing goes here. If I feel that both candidates are going to do harm to this country, I will not use my voice and my vote as a citizen to say "I APPROVE OF YOU HARMING MY COUNTRY" simply because I think the other person may ALSO harm the country as well.

Live with the consequences of that? Without losing a moments sleep.

 

[AlbqOwl]

And not surprisingly, it's some of these who are the loudest in terms of being angry that people are doing the same thing they did in 2008.

That's what's ABUNDANTLY hilarious.

So many Trump supporters talk about the "Silent Majority" and how Trump will win because he's going to turn out all these people that just refused to vote before for people like McCain and Romney.

And yet, despite the fact that their entire strategy is built on the backs of people who refused to vote for a ****ty candidate in the past coming out to vote for their guy, they want to act indignant and antagonistic to people who are refusing to vote for a ****ty candidate this time.

"We're going to turn all those people out who got pissy and refused to vote for 'your guy' in the past elections and that's how we're going to win, so you just need to deal with it and not be pissy and vote for 'our guy' this time".

Also, it's kind of ironic watching your tacitly support and approve of the Trump candidacy while going on about how one of Romney's problems were his "negatives were just too high".

Have I been supporting Trump tacitly or otherwise? That was not my intention. But I do see a good many reasons to vote for Trump if he indeed is the candidate rather than accept four to eight more years of what we have had for the last eight years.

As a closet historian/political analyst and one time journalist, I have been watching this election with great interest. I've never seen anything quite like it. And yes, if you noted all I have posted about Romney, the fact is his negatives were just too high coupled with him not being that personally likable. He was not able to generate passion, enthusiasm, strong feelings of hope and possibilities. Despite his high negatives, Donald Trump is personally likable and does all that. Add that to him being the non-politically correct and non-establishment candidate in an election year in which millions are thoroughly disgusted with Congress and all establishment powers and are pushing back against destructive political correctness, and you have a winner in Trump. Like it or not.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Actually this is almost entirely rhetoric BS, sorry to be so blatant.
Trump *IS* Clinton. He *IS* Obama. If Trump is elected then my prediction is he will not get any of his more "out there" ideas passed, he will face opposition from Congress the likes of which has never been seen, and he will be "forced to be Centrist" once he realizes this or he will use this as an excuse because he is ALREADY Centrist and is just feeding his followers lines to get the vote.
As an aside, the entire country of Mexico did not insult him so he does insult those who don't insult him.

I have no obligation to "hold my nose" (spelled "settle for what you get"). Absolutely to hell with that and to hell with anyone telling us who we are responsible to vote for, overrated celebrities and government panderers both.
I won't "settle" and I won't be told I have to settle.

Marilyn Vos Savant 2016 eace



I agree. I don't see most Trump supporters as racist or religious bigots. I see most Trump supporters as people who don't want Clinton in office.
Unfortunately, that is a sad often repeated way of voting. We know the definition of insanity right?

You can see my views as BS. Many do. I won't hold that against you.

And yes, most Trump supporters are absolutely people who don't want Clinton (or Sanders) in office. But since I think they have excellent reasons to not want Clinton or Sanders in office, their choosing Trump as the alternative is not unreasonable or insane. Whatever you think about Trump, and whatever you accuse him rightly or wrongly, he is no Hillary Clinton.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Who is more debasing than the guy who mocked the disabled, encouraged violence against protesters, and compared his opponent to a child molester?

I'll repeat for the third time now. I don't parrot the assigned talking points choosing a tiny bit of minutia out of context and hold it up as 'evidence' to trash a person. That is what Cruz has been doing lately and it is destroying his credibility.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Wait. Are you referring to this?




Because the only person I see being a dick in this video is the dude Cruz is talking to.


In fact, Cruz is pretty respectful, in the face of some real dickishness, throughout this exchange. Were you being sarcastic?

And I am speaking as one who was a strong Cruz supporter for some time and who would still vote for him should he be the nominee . . .I resent Cruz's approach in that encounter and though he was the one being the dick.

 

[AlbqOwl]

So, I saw in the news today that Donald Trump is now claiming that Ted Cruz's father was connected to the JFK Assassination, and it reminded me of this post. Given that Trump has, at various times, variously called his opponents pathological, liars, compared them to child molesters, argued that they weren't even real Americans, etc., what has Cruz done that you think amounts to greater amounts of mudslinging? Given that Trump has made fun of the way that Kasich eats and that Fiorina was too ugly to be voted for, where has Cruz been more petty?

Oh yeah? What news report was that. I am seeing a ton of stuff on the internet that people are making up for the benefit of the gullible. Why is it that Cruz can say all manner of hateful and angry things about Trump and that's okay, but if Trump mixes it up that way, it is not okay? You posted that link to Cruz's confrontation with a few Trump supporters and you had to hear the really hateful things Cruz was using to accuse Trump. How about some objectivity here?

 

[cpwill]

I'll repeat for the third time now. I don't parrot the assigned talking points choosing a tiny bit of minutia out of context and hold it up as 'evidence' to trash a person. That is what Cruz has been doing lately and it is destroying his credibility.

You mean, Cruz has been pointing out that Donald Trump says bad things, and holds liberal positions?

Gosh. The horror. That's so much worse than mocking the way someone eats, or their wife.


But you argued that Trump wasn't the most debasing candidate. Okedoke - that's fine if you believe that. But it begs the question: Which Candidate is more debasing than the guy who mocked the disabled, encouraged violence against protesters, and compared his opponent to a child molester?

 

[Zyphlin]

Why is it that Cruz can say all manner of hateful and angry things about Trump and that's okay, but if Trump mixes it up that way, it is not okay?

What hateful or angry thing that isn't about policy or tactics has Cruz stated about Donald Trump?

You want a good comparison? We see Donald is going after Cruz's father and wanting to "ask questions" about his involvement with Lee Harvey Oswald. What was Cruz's response to the new reports tying Trumps father to the KKK?

 

[cpwill]

Oh yeah? What news report was that. I am seeing a ton of stuff on the internet that people are making up for the benefit of the gullible.

....there's a link. It's to Politico. It has the video of Trump on the Fox and Friends morning show.

Why is it that Cruz can say all manner of hateful and angry things about Trump and that's okay, but if Trump mixes it up that way, it is not okay?

I don't see where Cruz has said all manner of hateful and angry things about Trump. But if you can point me to anywhere where Cruz has done something that is the equivalent of mocking the disabled, comparing his opponents to child-molesters, mocking women for their looks, or threatening his opponents spouses, I'd very much be interested in seeing it, as it would provide me with good reason not to vote for him in the General (if that becomes an option).

But you can't. Because Cruz pointing out that Donald Trump supported a gun ban isn't actually the same as Donald Trump mocking the disabled or encouraging his supporters to do violence to protesters.

You posted that link to Cruz's confrontation with a few Trump supporters and you had to hear the really hateful things Cruz was using to accuse Trump.

Like what? Cruz was nothing but respectful to the protesters (contra your initial claim), and did nothing more than accurately repeat what Donald had said and argued. I think you are confusing "Accurately describing Trump's record" with "hateful".

How about some objectivity here?

I'm not a huge fan of either man. I think Cruz would have severe problems overseeing conservative change because he can't play well with others. But Donald Trump's behavior is light years beyond Cruz's. Objective comparison doesn't find anything that he does or says that matches Trump's abuses. Cruz respectfully engages protesters, Trump urges his crowd to sock them in the face. Cruz points out that Trump has consistently supported liberal policies, Trump responds by calling him Lyin Ted and threatening his wife. Cruz admits that he doesn't tithe like he should, Trump brags about screwing other mens' wives. These two things are not the same.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I guess I just disagree on that point.



No you don't. You accept they both suck, you acknowledge you have no preference between the two, and you simply go with the one that is still standing at the point when you HAVE to choose.

Because that's the thing, in your scenario, the point where you "Have to pick one" doesn't actually exist. You never HAVE to choose between two presidential candidates. You have to ACCEPT one, once they're elected, but that's it.

So taking your example of the two houses...

I already have Shelter while I'm waiting to make the choice between the one with the ****ty plumbing and floor plan and the other has termites and a leaky roof. And ultimately, one of those two houses are going to crumble to pieces. So I can either make my choice now, and either accept that by my own choosing I either moved into a ****ty house that stayed standing or I moved into a ****ty house that fell apart....or I could simply wait, refuse to choose either, and move into the one that eventually is still standing making it abundantly clear to the landlord my ass is out of there as soon as I can be.

You keep wanting to make this some kind of example where YOU MUST pick one or the other; it isn't. You keep wanting to make this some kind of example where YOU MUST feel one is better than the other; you don't.

Yes, there are consequences you must suffer for your refusal to make a choice and the person to blame for that is you. SIMILARLY, there are consequences you must suffer for your choices that you make, and the person to blame for that is you.

If I feel that both candidates will significantly harm this country and significantly undermine the foundational principles upon which it was created, then I will GLADLY suffer the consequences of not helping one of those ****s get into office more than I'll suffer the consequences of actually HELPING one of those ****s get into office.

See, that's the difference.

NOT casting your vote for one is not HELPING the other get elected; it is simply harming that one in being elected. To HELP the other, you actually have to VOTE for the other. The ONLY way that doesn't work is if you are guaranteed or required to vote for the other guy if those were the only options.

But that's not the only options

You can vote for one
You can vote for the other
You can vote for a third party
Or you could stay home

If YOU personally don't have any qualms with saying "I support this person and what they will potentially do to this country, and I'm putting my voice and vote as a citizen in support and approval of this person and their actions" then that's more power to you. Nothing wrong with that. But to hell with any person who thinks that a citizen should be shamed, forced, or obligated to cast their vote and give their support to someone they honestly feel will be harmful to this country.

If faced with helping one enemy of this nation or helping another enemy of this nation, I instead choose to help neither and harm befalls my country; I would sleep soundly knowing that I did not AID that harm from happening, and did all I possibly could individually to stop that harm from coming.

Same thing goes here. If I feel that both candidates are going to do harm to this country, I will not use my voice and my vote as a citizen to say "I APPROVE OF YOU HARMING MY COUNTRY" simply because I think the other person may ALSO harm the country as well.

Live with the consequences of that? Without losing a moments sleep.

If you believe both candidates will do equal harm to the country then indeed both of the houses available to you are on fire and you're screwed.

So yes, we will just have to disagree on that.

We know what we are getting with Hillary. And I honestly have tried--especially trying to co-coach a debate team who had to promote her as the candidate--to come up with something I felt I could honestly commend her on. I came up with nothing. I just had to help the kids fabricate a tissue of lies so they would have something to argue. And I knew full well if the other side was well coached, none of those argument would hold up.

On the Trump side it was much much easier. Yes the man has done some questionable things. Yes the man can be insulting or even petty sometimes. Yes he is entirely unconventional and thoroughly politically incorrect while offering allegiance to no political party and no commitment to any ideology. But it was extremely easy to compile a list of accomplishments, skill sets, qualities, and successes that would be strong attributes to admire in a President.

In short I know what we will get with a President Clinton. I hope what we will get with a President Trump is the best that is in a man who in many ways is a very good man.