If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Sept. Edition)

[onyx1]

Another professional persuader sees the future.

 

Michael Moore, last night: “Pro-Hillary gloaters doing end-zone dance again when still on 50-yd line, you must get it in your head Trump is gonna win and act accordingly!”

[LC]

What the hell did I just watch last night.

 

You lost 90 minutes of your life that you can never get back.  I didn't do that to myself.  I figured if Hillary passed out or Trump said a racial slur, or it came to blows, etc,  I could see the lowlights the next day on youtube.

 

It was incredible in it's own way. I've seen the last 20 years worth of presidential debates, and this was BAAAAD. They're better off just turning it into a SNL skit, at least that way it's socially acceptable to laugh and flip the channel to sports or a made-for-tv movie.

[Liberty]

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the polls after Clinton kicked his ass.

 

 

 

These are all online website polls, correct?

 

See: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-clinton-debate-online-polls-4chan-the-donald/

[arcube]

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151007796236/i-score-the-first-debate

 

This cartoon guy is a good example. Granted that his divorce  completely screwed him up  two years ago but you have to be a nut job prior to that to be so oblivious. Look how in his world, Trump has done so well last night that he is on his way to win the election. A fact free analysis. And he is the learned one among them.

 

I dunno -

 

As an independent who dislikes both proportionately, this seems like a pretty level-headed analysis of the debate with the exception of his comments about her looking unhealthy. I didn't see that, but he was also on that train long before her coughing fits and unconscious episodes so maybe he really does see more than I do in that regard. At least enough for me to not write him off as crazy for suggesting it.

 

That doesn't mean his outcome will come to fruition, but I understand his argument. Clinton definitely seemed more composed and more prepared, and said things of greater substance. We all knew she would and it hasn't mattered the whole election cycle up to this point. I don't necessarily know why that will suddenly start mattering now.

 

Trump's biggest flaws has been the question "do you really want his finger on the nuke button?" and his "racist" image among minorities. At least one of those was addressed in his performance at the debate while Hillary only told us what we already knew about her. Trump's starting from a lower base and his improvements are easier from here so it's easy to see him gaining in image and support even while "losing" debates on traditional metrics.

 

Trump lost by any objective measure, but if Americans were objective in how we measured these candidates neither one of them would be in the position they're in. If we ignore that metric, which most Americans seem too, Trump probably gained more than Hillary did from his performance, which is all the Dilbert guy is saying.

 

While Valcont makes a good point, I think you are right about Scott. I would not discount Scott like that. Irrespective of the politics of the day, I think a while back he was one of the few people who could dissect DT's method/whatever that he does.

 

[Travis Wiedower]

lol I have zero loyalty to either party (especially to those two idiots), but I thought she won hands down. Trump started out fine, but he could barely form a coherent sentence in the second half. His Florida club comment has to be one of the most cringe worthy statements ever said during a presidential debate. With that being said, I won't be surprised if Trump gains more in the polls (as others have discussed).

[DCG]

[valcont]

As an independent who dislikes both proportionately, this seems like a pretty level-headed analysis of the debate with the exception of his comments about her looking unhealthy. I didn't see that, but he was also on that train long before her coughing fits and unconscious episodes so maybe he really does see more than I do in that regard. At least enough for me to not write him off as crazy for suggesting it.

 

 

Do you really believe the analysis is level headed?? He claims Trump looks presidential and not scary.I am sure blacks and hispanics must be celebrating that he has "allowed" them in his golf club. And his coherent ,well laid out foreign policy must be scaring the hell out of ISIS , Russia and Korea. And his stamina..Oh boy he had so much of it that its coming out of his nostrils every fews seconds. And the manners take the cake.The guy simply looked like a nervous wreck and this was way out of his league.

 

And how about Scott's analysis of Hillary's health? Apparently the hypnotist and the master persuader can tell that Hillary is not well by looking at her eyes. This guy has a great future in telemedicine. And this expert diagnosis is confirmed by his know nothing,20 something pin up neighbor Kristina!!

I seriously think he needs a psychologist more than Men's rights association visits. The guy has turned into a complete wacko. No wonder that the wife wisely left him and now the world has to put up with his idiocy.

 

 

 

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

As an independent who dislikes both proportionately, this seems like a pretty level-headed analysis of the debate with the exception of his comments about her looking unhealthy. I didn't see that, but he was also on that train long before her coughing fits and unconscious episodes so maybe he really does see more than I do in that regard. At least enough for me to not write him off as crazy for suggesting it.

 

 

Do you really believe the analysis is level headed?? He claims Trump looks presidential and not scary.I am sure blacks and hispanics must be celebrating that he has "allowed" them in his golf club. And his coherent ,well laid out foreign policy must be scaring the hell out of ISIS , Russia and Korea. And his stamina..Oh boy he had so much of it that its coming out of his nostrils every fews seconds. And the manners take the cake.The guy simply looked like a nervous wreck and this was way out of his league.

 

And how about Scott's analysis of Hillary's health? Apparently the hypnotist and the master persuader can tell that Hillary is not well by looking at her eyes. This guy has a great future in telemedicine. And this expert diagnosis is confirmed by his know nothing,20 something pin up neighbor Kristina!!

I seriously think he needs a psychologist more than Men's rights association visits. The guy has turned into a complete wacko. No wonder that the wife wisely left him and now the world has to put up with his idiocy.

 

I laid out exactly why I thought it was a reasonable thought process and that I also questioned his comments on her health (but that he'd been right so far), but it seems like you skipped over all of that to rush in to say something that addresses 0 of the arguments that were made and simply rehash your first post with more inflammatory language. I guess you still had enough time to remove those comments from your quote of my post though...

 

I think I'll go back to ignoring the political threads now. They don't really seem to attract the higher tier discussions that I came to this forum for in the first place.

[JayGatsby]

Based only on this poll, the winner over the last 24 hours of previously undeclared (undecided?) voters was Gary Johnson. Doubt that tells us much but I found it interesting.

[Liberty]

[Spekulatius]

What the hell did I just watch last night.

 

You watched Trump making a fool of himself :

 

Trump: "You've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life," he said, using an acronym for the terrorist group based in Syria and Iraq.

 

FWIW,  ISIS was probably founded 12 years ago, but has only become a factor 3-4 years ago. I guess he and his foreign advisor do not follow the news very closely.

[Liberty]

Nice book review: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.html

[Cardboard]

Only National Socialist U.S. Workers Party members can come up with shit like this...

 

Jeffrey Gundlach predicted that Trump will be President and I would not be too quick to dismiss his predictions.

 

Enjoy leftists!

 

Cardboard

 

[muscleman]

Guys, remember we talked about voter fraud before, and some people insisted that there is no such an issue?

See below. The Burlington WA shooter was not a citizen but voted a couple times anyway.

 

 

http://www.king5.com/mb/news/local/investigators-may-probe-cascade-mall-suspects-citizenship-status-voting-record/327490798?from=groupmessage&isappinstalled=0#

 

Federal sources confirm to KING 5 that Cetin was not a U.S. citizen, meaning legally he cannot vote. However, state records show Cetin registered to vote in 2014 and participated in three election cycles, including the May presidential primary.

 

 

 

 

[Travis Wiedower]

Nice book review: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.html

 

This is frightening. I recently told my girlfriend that watching Trump has made me realize how someone like Hitler can rise to power.

 

This sentence struck a chord with me: "Politicians, for their part, suffered from the delusion that the dominance of traditional conservatives in the cabinet would neutralize the threat of Nazi abuse of power and 'fence Hitler in.'" Many people today think that, if elected, Trump won't be able to do too much damage because lack of support from Congress. Hopefully our checks and balances are better than Germany's were!

[Cardboard]

A guy that has a wife, children, grandchildren, a daughter married with a Jewish man, a successful businessman, mostly self-made billionaire with no history of violence is compared to:

 

a guy who fought WW I and mentioned that it was the greatest moment of his life, tried to get to power via a failed coup, had a girlfriend who committed suicide, did rise to power while his supporters killed journalists and others opposing him and expressed all along a clear hatred for many groups.

 

I am sorry but, you are truly delusional or a liar if you keep presenting such comparison.

 

While the guy can't help himself from expressing every thought that comes to his mind, comparing him to Hitler is simply out of touch with reality.

 

So if someone comes out and say that they want to enforce immigration laws already in place, they are Hitler? Sounds totally logical to me...

 

Cardboard

[onyx1]

A guy that has a wife, children, grandchildren, a daughter married with a Jewish man, a successful businessman, mostly self-made billionaire with no history of violence is compared to:

 

a guy who fought WW I and mentioned that it was the greatest moment of his life, tried to get to power via a failed coup, had a girlfriend who committed suicide, did rise to power while his supporters killed journalists and others opposing him and expressed all along a clear hatred for many groups.

 

I am sorry but, you are truly delusional or a liar if you keep presenting such comparison.

 

While the guy can't help himself from expressing every thought that comes to his mind, comparing him to Hitler is simply out of touch with reality.

 

So if someone comes out and say that they want to enforce immigration laws already in place, they are Hitler? Sounds totally logical to me...

 

Cardboard

 

 

Personal insults and Hitler references seem to be all they have left.

[Liberty]

Don't forget that Trump isn't Austrian either. So there can't be any similarities in their salesmanship tactics and their sociopathic-narcissistic personalities.

 

Trump is such a good salesman that people who are deeply resentful of the rich coastal elites and big businesses who treat low-level employees badly support him. He's such a good salesman that people who identify as conservative and would say that values like honesty and traditional family structures are most important to them support him. His salesmanship talent is so great that he can be one of the most inauthentic person imaginable (he's always playing a role and has incredibly slippery beliefs, he pretends to be his own agent and calls others to praise himself, etc) yet be praised for his authenticity. One of the most insecure guy who erects monuments to his own glory and will keep up grudges with journalists for years over the smallest slights (small hands) is praised as a big alpha dog. He's so amazing at it that he can say with total confidence that he never said many things that he said in front of cameras or wrote online and there will be hordes to defend his claims. He's aggressively attacked others for doing things that he's now doing without apparently giving it any second thought (it was terrible when Mitt Romney was slow to release his tax records...). A man who uses hyperbole every other word is praised as someone who "tells it like it is"...

 

What's scary is that even his supporters have no idea what he would do in power because over time he's held so many positions that it becomes clear that he'll just say whatever he thinks will work best to get what he wants at any particular time. If you're familiar with the concept of social engineering, this is it on a very large scale. He used to want to run for president as a democrat, but now he's courting the far right.. But it's a tribal thing; people root for "their side", including all the republicans who fought him and thought he was a clown (*cough* Cruz *cough*).

 

I find it sad that otherwise fairly rational people get carried away in the sports of politics and forget that with a clear head, they would never support a person like that to run a company they invested in (want Trump to run Berkshire Hathaway?), yet they think he could run a country and make decisions about things like war (life & death for many including soldiers).

[Jurgis]

Trump is such a good salesman that people who are deeply resentful of the rich coastal elites support him. He's such a good salesman that people who identify as conservative and would say that values like honesty and traditional family structures are most important to them support him. His salesmanship talent is so great that he can be one of the most inauthentic person imaginable (he's always playing a role and has incredibly slippery beliefs, he pretends to be his own agent and calls others to praise himself, etc) yet be praised for his authenticity. One of the most insecure guy who erects monuments to his own glory and will keep up grudges with journalists for years over the smallest slights (small hands) is praised as a big alpha dog. He's so amazing at it that he can say with total confidence that he never said many things that he said in front of cameras or wrote online and there will be hordes to defend his claims. He's aggressively attacked others for doing things that he's now doing without apparently giving it any second thoughts.

 

What's scary is that even his supporters have no idea what he would do in power because over time he's held so many positions that it becomes clear that he'll just say whatever he thinks will work best to get what he wants at any particular time. He used to want to run for president as a democrat, but now he's courting the far right.. But it's a tribal thing; people root for "their side", including all the republicans who fought him and thought he was a clown (*cough* Cruz *cough*).

 

Great summary.

[Travis Wiedower]

A guy that has a wife, children, grandchildren, a daughter married with a Jewish man, a successful businessman, mostly self-made billionaire with no history of violence is compared to:

 

a guy who fought WW I and mentioned that it was the greatest moment of his life, tried to get to power via a failed coup, had a girlfriend who committed suicide, did rise to power while his supporters killed journalists and others opposing him and expressed all along a clear hatred for many groups.

 

I am sorry but, you are truly delusional or a liar if you keep presenting such comparison.

 

While the guy can't help himself from expressing every thought that comes to his mind, comparing him to Hitler is simply out of touch with reality.

 

So if someone comes out and say that they want to enforce immigration laws already in place, they are Hitler? Sounds totally logical to me...

 

Cardboard

 

I don't think Trump is comparable to Hitler, maybe I didn't make my point clearly. I said watching him (pandering to people's dislike of traditional politicians for example) has helped me understand how someone like Hitler can come to power (which that link discusses). I don't think Trump would turn into Hitler if elected, but he does want to do some crazy shit that isn't very American IMO.

[Cardboard]

"...he does want to do some crazy shit that isn't very American IMO."

 

Like enforcing laws, creating better trade agreements, protecting its citizens, developing better relations with Russia, enforcing the Constitution, striving to do better... I see  :o

 

Cardboard

[valcont]

The support for Trump is more nuanced than the broad brush he is being painted in the media. There is definitely a racist, xenophobic element in it but if I have to sum up the support in couple words it'll be "F*U Establishment" .

 

Look at the issues here. Immigration is so out of control that it is considered a right not a privilege anymore. A corporate tool driven by greed and corruption and sold to the public as unavoidable. We don't need pre 1965 immigration policy but we definitely can do better than the mess we are in. And it doesn't help that any call to reform is branded as xenophobic.

 

And why does a US taxpayer has to protect the Europeans and Japanese so they can take 2-3 months of vacation in peace and quiet. If Germany needs our soldiers they better pay us. Would you buy your friends free lunch every time?

 

There is a lot of grey in his support but I suspect no matter who wins it'll be a one time term if the opposing side presents even a slightly better candidate

than what we have now.

 

I posted that few months ago. I agreed with his stand on Immigration and some aspects of foreign policy. We dole out 50 thousand green cards per year to anyone who wins a lottery!! What kind

of stupid lame ass policy is that? How does it help our nation. Problem with Trump was that instead of channeling that frustration he chose to channel hatred and bigotry to attract the most

unappealing demographic. I can't be part of that.

[Tim Eriksen]

The bottom line is both candidates are not just flawed, but deeply flawed.  Neither is attractive but a third party vote is rather meaningless.  I invert it.  The House is almost assuredly going to be held by Republicans.  The Senate is more likely than not going to be Republican, and could be tied such that the VP will determine which party has control.  (If the Dems did win the Senate it would likely only last two years due to the high number of seats they have up for re-election in 2018).  So the question I ask myself is would I rather have Hillary with a Republican Congress where major proposals of both sides are going nowhere (largely status quo) or would I rather have Trump where GOP proposals are likely to be passed and approved.  With a Republican Congress most of Hilary's proposals would be dead on arrival.

 

In other words what do I prefer on taxes - no change or a reduced corporate income tax and possibly personal income taxes?  What do I prefer on immigration -  tighter controls and enforcement or more of the same?  What do I prefer for judicial nominations - liberal or conservative?  etc.  I can't think about the candidates because they both make me want to vomit, so I have to focus on the bigger picture and hold my nose and vote based on that.   

[Liberty]

The bottom line is both candidates are not just flawed, but deeply flawed.  Neither is attractive but a third party vote is rather meaningless.  I invert it.  The House is almost assuredly going to be held by Republicans.  The Senate is more likely than not going to be Republican, and could be tied such that the VP will determine which party has control.  (If the Dems did win the Senate it would likely only last two years due to the high number of seats they have up for re-election in 2018).  So the question I ask myself is would I rather have Hillary with a Republican Congress where major proposals of both sides are going nowhere (largely status quo) or would I rather have Trump where GOP proposals are likely to be passed and approved.  With a Republican Congress most of Hilary's proposals would be dead on arrival.

 

In other words what do I prefer on taxes - no change or a reduced corporate income tax and possibly personal income taxes?  What do I prefer on immigration -  tighter controls and enforcement or more of the same?  What do I prefer for judicial nominations - liberal or conservative?  etc.  I can't think about the candidates because they both make me want to vomit, so I have to focus on the bigger picture and hold my nose and vote based on that. 

 

Do you think Trump would feel bound by his campaign once in office? You can't even say that you know where Trump stands on things and that once elected that's what he'd do, because in the past he's been all over the place and seems more guided by self-interest in the moment than by values that are stable over time.

 

IMO one of the variables you forgot is that one candidate is pretty predictable, while the other isn't. I wouldn't mind it so much if I also thought he was honest, put the interests of others above his own, wasn't entangled in conflicts of interest, wasn't belligerent, etc. But unpredictable + these things gets pretty scary..

[Tim Eriksen]

The bottom line is both candidates are not just flawed, but deeply flawed.  Neither is attractive but a third party vote is rather meaningless.  I invert it.  The House is almost assuredly going to be held by Republicans.  The Senate is more likely than not going to be Republican, and could be tied such that the VP will determine which party has control.  (If the Dems did win the Senate it would likely only last two years due to the high number of seats they have up for re-election in 2018).  So the question I ask myself is would I rather have Hillary with a Republican Congress where major proposals of both sides are going nowhere (largely status quo) or would I rather have Trump where GOP proposals are likely to be passed and approved.  With a Republican Congress most of Hilary's proposals would be dead on arrival.

 

In other words what do I prefer on taxes - no change or a reduced corporate income tax and possibly personal income taxes?  What do I prefer on immigration -  tighter controls and enforcement or more of the same?  What do I prefer for judicial nominations - liberal or conservative?  etc.  I can't think about the candidates because they both make me want to vomit, so I have to focus on the bigger picture and hold my nose and vote based on that. 

 

Do you think Trump would feel bound by his campaign once in office? You can't even say that you know where Trump stands on things and that once elected that's what he'd do, because in the past he's been all over the place and seems more guided by self-interest in the moment than by values that are stable over time.

 

IMO one of the variables you forgot is that one candidate is pretty predictable, while the other isn't. I wouldn't mind it so much if I also thought he was honest, put the interests of others above his own, wasn't belligerent, etc. But unpredictable + these things gets pretty scary..

 

No I do not think that Trump would feel bound by anything nor do I know what he truly believes and would do.  What if his views were actually the same as Hillary, but if that is the case then it is essentially the same as a vote for her.  Without a doubt Trump is higher risk than Hillary, but he is the only one who could pleasantly surprise.  The risks are largely, but clearly not totally, mitigated by our system of divided government.

 

I didn't ignore the issue of predictability.  It is included in the inversion.  Presidential power is vast but somewhat limited.  I too would prefer him to be honest and put the interests of others before his own and wasn't belligerent.  If those attributes were even remotely true of either candidate it would be a simpler choice.