US Presidential Election - What's your take?

[fastpitch17]

If you want to talk dead people. Prop Reagan up and run him and I bet he would win.

I thought I was staying away from the dead people by adding "the likes of" but I guess not.

 

[waarmstrong]

Two things spring to mind ....

1. It would be serious if the US predilection for guns were to cause the death of the President elect before inauguration in January. Then the elected Vice President would be President and people would ask...WHO? Children, doing civil history at school, would fail if asked to name their President.

2. After inauguration, if both were assassinated or otherwise demised, then the Speaker of the House becomes the President....currently that's meek Paul Ryan, who didn't want to run!

Conspiracy theorists...any comments?

Don't we have enough crackpot conspiratorial scenarios cluttering the public discourse already? Oh what the hell, I guess there is room for a couple more.

 

[Davita]

Don't we have enough crackpot conspiratorial scenarios cluttering the public discourse already? Oh what the hell, I guess there is room for a couple more.

Trump's Vice-President's plane just ran off the runway at LaGuardia and was stopped by emergency 'arrestor beds' 100 feet from the road with traffic....

http://www.aol.com/article/news/201...dl32|sec1_lnk3&pLid=-490221412_htmlws-main-bb

Who needs conspiracy theories....hehehe.

 

[fastpitch17]

This new FBI email probe may narrow the vote numbers. Dems have seemed to ignore it once they proclaimed there was nothing to prosecute but now they may be paying cliser attention. This could swing the independents back to the right. It's a terrible thing for the US to have a choice of candidates but no choice for a good one.

 

[waarmstrong]

The FBI director seems to be in "personal reputation protecting" mode which for him seems to trump (pun intended) any concern what impact his incomplete but provocative announcement could have on the election.

 

[Nimbus]

Now half of Americans have concerns about the possibility of post election violence.
http://usat.ly/2eMsGd9

Former congressman Joe Walsh said that he's grabbing his musket if Trump loses.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/joe-walsh-donald-trump-protest-tweet/index.html

 

[Davita]

The FBI director seems to be in "personal reputation protecting" mode which for him seems to trump (pun intended) any concern what impact his incomplete but provocative announcement could have on the election.

I agree...if the FBI Director's 'concern' to advise Congress, against the wishes of the A.G., doesn't have an effect on the result and Clinton still wins...he'd better have a plan B for future employment.

edit: On reflection...it Trump wins, and the FBI Director can claim he assisted...I guess a promotion. I wonder what job he is contemplating.

If either of those situations prevail and sways the American voters....then Trump is correct...the system is broken.

edit2: Just watched Judge Jeanines rant on Fox on this subject of the FBI's investigation...OMG what an angry woman.

 

[jstar]

I know they still call a male ex-president "Mr. President" and refer to "President xxxx" but if someone was a judge and now is a political 'analyst' and commentator and tv personality, is (s)he still to be called "Your Honor" or referred to as "Judge"?

 

[steveandpenny]

Its a sad time to be from the united states of america right now. Who ever wins america loses. And the election is rigged its rigged by the fools who got trump nomiated. This bufoon is the only person cliton can beat.. its just a no win for the people of united states . Either a lying hate monger , who has not one bit of human passion or a lying, same old poltical person that has led america down the road to big bussiness. Oh well i live here so cheers

 

[Puspawarna]

I hear a lot of "they are both terrible!" as if the consequences of electing either one are the same. That's not how I feel at all - so I am curious to ask people: what scary thing do you expect to see happening, should either candidate be elected? How likely do you think that is?

For me, here's the worst I can think of:

TRUMP

• Gets the opportunity to nominate several people to SCOTUS and puts extremist social conservatives on the bench. For years or even decades to come, we have a Court that favors big business, denies LGBTQ equal rights, overturns Roe v. Wade, makes any kind of checks and balances on gun ownership unconstitutional (leading to more violence when more crazies own guns), and undercuts personal liberties in as yet unimagined ways.
• Goes bonkers on trade restrictions (or at least as bonkers as he can - despite his stupid rhetoric, he isn't necessarily free to just "renegotiate" deals already in place that he doesn't like), which will cost American jobs and create more poverty, at the same time social protection schemes are becoming ever more limited.
• Creates an atmosphere of hate, leading to more domestic violence and more terrorist attacks, as he demonstrates to the world that America is intolerant and hates Islam, making the recruitment efforts of ISIS and others much easier.
• Goes so crazy that he gets himself impeached; not that I would mind that per se, but the lunacy that is apt to accompany such a thing can't possibly be good for the country.
• Runs up the deficit by getting infeasible tax plans passed.
• Makes American healthcare even less affordable than it already is, by repealing Obamacare and replacing it with nothing, meaning poor people will have no access to decent health care.
• Starts a nuclear war somehow.

CLINTON

• Continuing investigation into her emails, etc. finally really does produce a smoking gun, she's impeached, and this isn't good for the country in the short run, plus it helps Republicans get into power over the medium term, so all their policies that I disagree with have a greater likelihood of being passed.
• She's such a "business as usual" candidate that nothing much happens good OR bad, this opens the door to greater Republican success in the medium term.

Okay, I have now revealed my deepest darkest fears. As you can see, my list for Clinton is shorter and less terrifying, so it is not surprising that I don't see the possible negative consequences of her presidency as anything like what Trump could do to us.

What are everyone else's fears? Does one candidate scare you more than the other, and if so, why?

 

[jstar]

.
In my eyes he is incompetent to lead the country but as weird as this might sound, I do feel Trump does offer some advantages though. Mainly many international relationships might improve.

Why? Because he is not intersted in playing the 'police of the world' role and will not interfere in foreign affairs. So no more Kuwaiti/Iraqi and Afghan situations (which strongly enforced the bad rep of the USA in the rest of the world and created a them-against-us mentality in the Muslim world).

Also, since it seems he will be very Putin friendly, no big issues about Syria (under the motto; let them bomb the hell out of them) and other hotspots that involve Russia('s influence).

Of course the (trade) relationship with China will be heavily damaged. And it is not so easy as; "we will do more ourselves". That is mere populism. In today's world you can not be isolated. (But you could argue the same about the British.)

 

[Puspawarna]

.
Why? Because he is not intersted in playing the 'police of the world' role and will not interfere in foreign affairs. So no more Kuwaiti/Iraqi and Afghan situations (which strongly enforced the bad rep of the USA in the rest of the world and created a them-against-us mentality in the Muslim world).

Thanks for the thought-provoking post. If he gets elected and you are right, this would be far better than what I fear, so I'd love it if you are right.

My concern is that, because of his narcissism, his bullying tendencies, and his desire to slam down anyone who causes him to lose face, he WILL play "police of the world" as soon as he thinks anything that happens in (pick your location, but ME and N Korea seem most likely) disses America - which he, in his narcissistic state, will see as dissing him personally.

Related to that - there is a video that is circulating now that (blindly pro-Hilary) people are pointing to as an example of Trump giving a woman an unwanted kiss. In my opinion, that's bullshit. If the worst anyone could find on Trump's behavior was this video, I wouldn't have any significant concerns about him - yeah, it's crude, and yeah, maybe he was a little mean, but - hey, showbiz!

What DOES concern me is his comment at the beginning - not quoting exactly here, but he essentially says, "if someone screws me, I screw them 10X harder."

THAT's scary.

Here's the video - the disturbing stuff is at the very beginning, to me (you can see him "humiliate" and kiss Jennifer Hawkins later, but if you are like me you won't be overly offended by it):

http://www.smh.com.au/video/video-n...s-kisses-jennifer-hawkins-20161028-4mh8o.html

Anyway, I really don't want a president who thinks "America = my ego" and thinks "someone screws me = I screw them back 10x harder." That, my friends, is a recipe for global catastrophe. ::Shudder::

 

[Nimbus]

.
In my eyes he is incompetent to lead the country but as weird as this might sound, I do feel Trump does offer some advantages though. Mainly many international relationships might improve.

Why? Because he is not intersted in playing the 'police of the world' role and will not interfere in foreign affairs. So no more Kuwaiti/Iraqi and Afghan situations (which strongly enforced the bad rep of the USA in the rest of the world and created a them-against-us mentality in the Muslim world).

Also, since it seems he will be very Putin friendly, no big issues about Syria (under the motto; let them bomb the hell out of them) and other hotspots that involve Russia('s influence).

Of course the (trade) relationship with China will be heavily damaged. And it is not so easy as; "we will do more ourselves". That is mere populism. In today's world you can not be isolated. (But you could argue the same about the British.)

Trump is a mental dwarf. USA will be a worse globo cop simply because Trump can't take the slightest personal offense. This is a guy who tweeted personal attacks at 3 AM in the morning. If Duterte calls president Trump a son of a bitch, Trump in the fit of rage might very well send the US Pacific Fleet over. Trump is not the guy you want to trust with the nuclear attack launch codes.

Trump is not interested in anything but himself. I don't think it's a plus at all.

 

[jstar]

^
That's where we probably have a different interpretation; I understand he does not want to be a Globo Cop (anymore). Look for instance at his stance on the Ukraine. (Even if that changed in the process.)

And he is not convinced at all that they should 'unconditionally' help out the NATO partners. (I.e. when one is attacked, all are attacked.)

This extreme vision of 'everything has to be in America's best interest' as foreign policy, could -strangely enough- lead to more global stability and peace.

 

[PhilippeD]

I just try to imagine:

- Trump doing a speech at the UN about whatever and participating at dealing international matter there.

- Trump dealing at a G20 or whatever international gathering

I can perfectly imagine him letting go a "Screw you all you muslim bitches" in a UN meeting as it seem to be is standard kind of language.


At the other side, Clinton is big chummy with bank, poor will become more poor under her (even if she fix the obamacare).
Her e-mail story is the proof that she make deal off the track and don't want be "tracked". Who the hell need a personal email server AT HIS HOME for exchange with other country???
Just the idea that she had this server don't sound good!

 

[waarmstrong]

Its a sad time to be from the united states of america right now. Who ever wins america loses. And the election is rigged its rigged by the fools who got trump nomiated. This bufoon is the only person cliton can beat.. its just a no win for the people of united states . Either a lying hate monger , who has not one bit of human passion or a lying, same old poltical person that has led america down the road to big bussiness. Oh well i live here so cheers

An inability to differentiate between the two candidates suggests to me a view compiled from the campaign rhetoric emanating from each candidate about the opponent. If you accept those characterizations without more detailed analysis, and here I mean consulting reputable sources such as the NY Times, The Economist, NPR, BBC, and even the Wall Street Journal among many others, then your opinion is a lazy cop out, an excuse.

Spare me the whining from the sidelines.

You may not find a pony after sifting through all the shit, but there are clear differences between the candidates. A choice depends for most people, I think, on what they bring to the table, and how your personal values mesh with the what the candidates profess to value and what each says he or she plans to do once elected.

I have already voted for Clinton because her views at their core appear to be focused on equity and inclusion -- concepts I value. Her SOP and experience suggests that she is well versed in the art of the doable in furtherance of such principles. Narrow, self-serving interests are less likely to get their way with her at the helm. Her appointments to the Supreme Court are more likely to expand the franchise.

Her pension for control and privacy, coupled with a not unjustified touch of paranoia, are major political liabilities as those obsessions have led to the edge of propriety. Lack of transparency and politically calculated explanations of charges have done her no favors. Still, her actions, time and time again, over the span of 30 years, have been investigated repeatedly by authorities and political opponents. Nothing has been found that disqualifies her from the Presidency.

 

[fastpitch17]

At least in this election I haven't heard anyone come out and say I am voting for so and so because they are the better looking of the nominees.

 

[jstar]

That new Bush guy will have a big JFK attraction in 8 years. Now avoid stupid remarks -for a change- and he will be set.

 

[waarmstrong]

Yes, no fair haired war hero against a dark countenance, sweaty guy with a pointy nose this go around. Might actually have to give some attention to what the candidates say, rather than how they look.

 

[fastpitch17]

Yes, no fair haired war hero against a dark countenance, sweaty guy with a pointy nose this go around. Might actually have to give some attention to what the candidates say, rather than how they look.

In a dream world perhaps but, unfortunately, most Americans get their political fix from soundbites from a news source or from their friend. Only a small percentage actuall listen and analyze information for themselves.