I was thinking, if one were a Republican, but had not drunk the Kool-Aid,it must be a tough field to choose from. Jeb Bush might have been a good horse, possibly Kasich. Bring back Mitt!
I mostly just post conservative-leaning cartoons to break up the echo chamber of this community a little bit. The monotony of the left-wing posts makes me chafe. I tend to vote on issues more than party, and that's led me to vote down the middle over the years, so I guess that makes me an independant? I voted for Bernie in the primary. If it comes down to Hillary vs Trump, I probably won't be able to drag myself into the booth. I can better manage the guilt of not voting than the guilt of choosing one of those two.
Do you really think that, if the election is between Trump and Hillary, you won't have a "choice?"
Neither option might be what you'd prefer, but Trump will be a real danger to this country (as would be Cruz, for different reasons). If we by our inaction allow Trump to win, we may come to regret that decision.
The choice between Trump and Clinton is a choice between money and money. Sure, Trump has his own; Hillary has to ask for hers (and compromise any position she might take to get it).
But money is money.
As to the danger posed by any given candidate, I've heard sky falling references for just about every candidate since I can remember. The Holy Craps devoted to W. were especially apoplectic (and admittedly I was one of the Holy Crappers).
The more I research why certain candidates get into office, however, the more I find the M-word. In their book Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer-And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, authors Hacker and Pierson note that a concerted spending effort on political transformation, started in the very early '70s, enabled Reagan's election and the transformation of the GOP before then and since
( ... )
As to the danger posed by any given candidate, I've heard sky falling references for just about every candidate since I can remember. The Holy Craps devoted to W. were especially apoplectic (and admittedly I was one of the Holy Crappers).So - suppose your vote were determinative between Gore and Bush back in 2000. You, and some group of like-minded individuals, chose not to vote for Gore or Bush, on the grounds that they both represented "money." Suppose that your choice not to vote for Gore (or to vote for Nader) had the direct effect of allowing Bush to be elected. Would you maintain that any "sky is falling" argument that had been made as to his potential presidency would have been shown to be unnecessarily hysterical by his actual presidency, and your choice not to participate vindicated as without real consequence
( ... )
So - suppose your vote were determinative between Gore and Bush back in 2000.
Me? I live in Washington State. There were quite a few voting irregularities, but not in King County, where I vote, and not enough to chad hang the state into the mess that followed.
Ah, but since Florida did go to Gore* (according to a recount undertaken by some newspapers), and since that recount was stopped in its tracks by some robed dudes (not the dudettes here), I'd say not only did my vote not count, but probably not yours as well.
Yes, W. was not my first choice. Pres. Obama, though, was. Heck, I still like him. And what has his presidency given us?
Increased deportations and drone strikes, both massively scaled up.
Gitmo, still open.
Warrantless surveillance: continued, despite campaign commitments to the contrary.
Health care, not public. Improved? Maybe. We'll see.
Economic disparity: status quo from W. maintained.
In summation, Mr. Obama really represents the third and fourth terms of Mr. Bush
( ... )
First, you're fighting the hypothetical, which is not helpful. Second, you have avoided the point i've put to you, which is that you believe that "Money" is the force that determines our politics, but also that you seem to have real, defensible opinions as to who, in most cases, ought to lead. Gore over Dubya, Obama over McCain, etc. But this time around you're saying that there's no difference between Trump and Clinton. This is despite noting the importance of who's actually in charge at this key historical moment, and despite even the "money" factor being crucially different between those two. This doesn't make sense.
I'm quite surprised at the disdain you've put into my stating of opinion. The TP crowd must be wearing off on you.
None of the above, what you wrote, is "first." What is? We are individuals, free to choose what guidelines we will, free to determine which items on the list are of importance. Sadly for you, what we personally decide, no matter what muster it might influence in others, is all that is important.
To content: ...you're fighting the hypothetical...
How is the fact that the major candidates are beholden to monied interests in any way "hypothetical?"
Next, I re-read to find the point I supposedly "avoided." It's way up there: You, and some group of like-minded individuals, chose not to vote for Gore or Bush, on the grounds that they both represented "money." That was the "challenge", was it not
( ... )
I'm quite surprised at the disdain you've put into my stating of opinion. The TP crowd must be wearing off on you.No - what I'm trying to do is draw your attention to an apparent inconsistency between two positions you've taken in your responses to me. When I warned that Trump was essentially a proto-fascist, you lamented that this turn in politics may well be inevitable, citing some social historian, but at the same noted that at crucial historical points such as the one we may be in, who's in power could matter a great deal. Here, you've complained that Hillary and Trump are essentially indistinguishable insofar as they serve moneyed interests, so you'll vote for neither. So you're either saying that Trump's being elected and imposing a fascistic order doesn't really matter, or that both Trump and Hillary pose similar risks of this. Which is it
( ... )
"Fighting the hypothetical" just means refusing to engage in this kind of mental exercise ... which means that you never have to acknowledge your position's weaknesses.
I'm not "fighting" the hypothetical. Your hypothetical is strawman scaremongering, with the implicit assumptions that:
Trump is dangerous; and
Any vote that isn't for a viable candidate that can beat Trump is yet another match on the Trump fire.
I know it's such because I used to berate former Nader voters with exactly the same argument. So why indulge it?
And here's a question for you: If the candidate of one's choice is not chosen by one's state's electoral college delegates, and if the Supremes decide to Bush the next recount, why are you putting so much mental energy into getting one voter to reconsider the logical inconsistencies of my, er, "his" vote
( ... )
Since I take it you are not a big liberal Democrat, who are you for?
Reply
Zadok has been around since the early days of LJ. From what I recall I think he may be in Cruz's camp, but I may be wrong.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I tend to vote on issues more than party, and that's led me to vote down the middle over the years, so I guess that makes me an independant?
I voted for Bernie in the primary. If it comes down to Hillary vs Trump, I probably won't be able to drag myself into the booth. I can better manage the guilt of not voting than the guilt of choosing one of those two.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I do not feel I have a choice, and that's unfortunate.
Reply
Neither option might be what you'd prefer, but Trump will be a real danger to this country (as would be Cruz, for different reasons). If we by our inaction allow Trump to win, we may come to regret that decision.
Reply
But money is money.
As to the danger posed by any given candidate, I've heard sky falling references for just about every candidate since I can remember. The Holy Craps devoted to W. were especially apoplectic (and admittedly I was one of the Holy Crappers).
The more I research why certain candidates get into office, however, the more I find the M-word. In their book Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer-And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, authors Hacker and Pierson note that a concerted spending effort on political transformation, started in the very early '70s, enabled Reagan's election and the transformation of the GOP before then and since ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Me? I live in Washington State. There were quite a few voting irregularities, but not in King County, where I vote, and not enough to chad hang the state into the mess that followed.
Ah, but since Florida did go to Gore* (according to a recount undertaken by some newspapers), and since that recount was stopped in its tracks by some robed dudes (not the dudettes here), I'd say not only did my vote not count, but probably not yours as well.
Yes, W. was not my first choice. Pres. Obama, though, was. Heck, I still like him. And what has his presidency given us?
- Increased deportations and drone strikes, both massively scaled up.
- Gitmo, still open.
- Warrantless surveillance: continued, despite campaign commitments to the contrary.
- Health care, not public. Improved? Maybe. We'll see.
- Economic disparity: status quo from W. maintained.
In summation, Mr. Obama really represents the third and fourth terms of Mr. Bush ( ... )Reply
Reply
None of the above, what you wrote, is "first." What is? We are individuals, free to choose what guidelines we will, free to determine which items on the list are of importance. Sadly for you, what we personally decide, no matter what muster it might influence in others, is all that is important.
To content: ...you're fighting the hypothetical...
How is the fact that the major candidates are beholden to monied interests in any way "hypothetical?"
Next, I re-read to find the point I supposedly "avoided." It's way up there: You, and some group of like-minded individuals, chose not to vote for Gore or Bush, on the grounds that they both represented "money." That was the "challenge", was it not ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I'm not "fighting" the hypothetical. Your hypothetical is strawman scaremongering, with the implicit assumptions that:
I know it's such because I used to berate former Nader voters with exactly the same argument. So why indulge it?
And here's a question for you: If the candidate of one's choice is not chosen by one's state's electoral college delegates, and if the Supremes decide to Bush the next recount, why are you putting so much mental energy into getting one voter to reconsider the logical inconsistencies of my, er, "his" vote ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment