Nosy Latin American chimes in US Election :P

[Sigma_Orionis]

In a discussion thread somewhere in the intertubes I posted this:

Unless the Democrats Nominate Sanders, A Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency

[SciFi Chick]

To answer swift's question, I am voting for Bernie Sanders no matter what. If I have to write his name in, so be it. I've reached my line in the sand. If the U.S. is dumb enough to elect Trump just because I vote for Sanders, then the U.S. deserves what it gets.

And if enough people wrote in his name, he could still win. It would be unprecedented and incredibly awesome.

I have no use for a pathological liar/sociopath, and for once, I do not feel like I'd be voting for the "lesser" of two evils by voting for Hillary.

[Sigma_Orionis]

All I have to say is that Donald Trump is IMHO the epitome of the so called "Ugly American" so I hope he loses badly.

[SciFi Chick]

All I have to say is that Donald Trump is IMHO the epitome of the so called "Ugly American" so I hope he loses badly.

I certainly hope that as well, because if he is elected by a majority, it says some very scary things about the U.S. population.

[Sigma_Orionis]

in a comment made by Yosh in that thread he says that the impression he got from the article in question, was that the Author was painting Trump as a modern version of Huey Long, since I had never heard of him I checked Long's Wikipedia Entry From it, it seems that Long was an experienced political operator (non-withstanding his alleged authoritarian tendencies). Well, while Trump seems more of a Chavez like figure from what I can see. In any case The only substantive complaint I have read about Sanders is that his economic plan is unrealistic. Paul Krugman barely stopped short of calling Sanders a conman. It's obvious that Krugman leans favorably towards Ms. Clinton.

geonuc says that he thought the article in the OP was too biased towards Sanders. The main reason I posted it is that I find Sanders' "grumpy old man" image appealing and the article favored him. So I figured that I found it reasonable because I have a confirmation bias.

[Cyborg Girl]

To answer swift's question, I am voting for Bernie Sanders no matter what. If I have to write his name in, so be it. I've reached my line in the sand. If the U.S. is dumb enough to elect Trump just because I vote for Sanders, then the U.S. deserves what it gets.

So no offense, but I've seen a lot of this, and I think it's a stupid idea.

Sanders -> maybe progress, we hope.

Clinton -> business as usual. Not good, but better than the Republicans.

Trump or Cruz -> I have friends who would be dead or in chains if these guys had their way.

I suspect Sanders will get the nomination anyway. But as much as I dislike holding my nose and voting for the lesser evil, I'll do it, if it helps keep Trump out of the Oval Office.

As for the US deserving what it gets... Do remember how much clout the US has worldwide. Having a violent nut as the Commander-in-Chief would be bad for everyone.

Edit: Sorry for being snappy here BTW. I'm just pissed as hell, and frankly appalled, by the current political climate. It's like half the country wants the world to end, or something.

[SciFi Chick]

It's fine that you're pissed. So am I. I am so fucking sick of people telling me that I have to vote for the status quo because that's just the way it is, and that if I don't follow along like a good little girl, it'll be my fault if Trump wins.

I get the same grief whether I say I'm not going to vote as I do if I decide to vote my conscience.

Well, guess what? Nothing will EVER change if we keep falling for this bullshit. If enough people vote for Sanders, it won't matter who the nomination is.

So you can say it's a stupid idea, and my response, is essentially - no offense meant - fuck off. What's the point of having the right to vote if NOTHING EVER CHANGES?

Sanders is the first candidate I've ever come across that I actually agree with on just about everything. I'm not going to throw that away because of fear mongering. I'm Not Going To Do It!!!!

[SciFi Chick]

Put another way, I'm told if I don't vote, I'm voting for Trump. If I vote for Sanders, I'm voting for Trump. If I vote for Trump, I'm voting for Trump.

The only good and moral thing to do is vote for Clinton. I don't even get told why she's a good candidate. Oh no. It's the status quo, and that's okay. Well, it's NOT FUCKING OKAY. This country is headed towards revolution, and keeping to the status quo will bring it about sooner.

I am doing what I think is right!

[Cyborg Girl]

@SFC

I agree, it's not okay at all. And I'm not telling you to vote for Clinton in the primary. Or saying that it's your fault if Trump gets in. My point was that, as much as the US slowly rotting sucks, the US going down in a ball of fire is going to suck more... But it sounds like maybe it will go down in a ball of fire soon enough, either way.

Look - I'm sorry. I guess I overstepped my bounds there. I'm kind of at my wit's end, and I'm guessing you're well beyond that. I ought to know better.

I'm sorry for being pushy, and being a jerk about this. Can you accept my apologies? Because the last thing I want to do right now, is start alienating friends.

...

As for the election... It's starting to sound like a vote for anyone is a vote for Trump, isn't it? Yes, I'll admit I'm scared shitless.

[SciFi Chick]

You're not alienating me. We are both, clearly emotional about this election, as I think many people are. That said, if you say I'm doing something stupid, and I don't think it's stupid, I'm going to mouth off at you.

I'm also not convinced Hillary can win against Trump. Yet another reason for me not to vote for her. I'll feel a lot better if Bernie gets the nomination. My primary is on March 1. I've never been this excited about voting in a primary before.

[Rommie]

Speaking of nosy people, apparently my opinions are good enough to be top 10 in the NY Times on this issue.

As I say in that comment, not even completely on board with Bernie, I just am so tired about the idea that things can't change in the USA.

[Cyborg Girl]

You're not alienating me. We are both, clearly emotional about this election, as I think many people are. That said, if you say I'm doing something stupid, and I don't think it's stupid, I'm going to mouth off at you.

That's part of why I like you.

I'm also not convinced Hillary can win against Trump. Yet another reason for me not to vote for her. I'll feel a lot better if Bernie gets the nomination. My primary is on March 1. I've never been this excited about voting in a primary before.

Agreed re the nomination. I'm not totally convinced anyone can win against Trump though.

And IMO you are right, insofar as the Democrats have been using fear of the Republicans to maintain an unpopular status quo. I suppose that how much one fears the Republicans vs. that status quo depends on one's economic circumstances, etc.

What really bothers me though, is the total failure of the media to call any Republican candidates out on their game. Everyone's saying, X is abrasive, sharp, nasty, pragmatic, whatever. Nobody is daring to say that X is morally wrong. Not the slightest peep about the ethics of any of this, about how many people this stuff could hurt, not from NPR and not from anyone else. It is fucking appalling.

I don't care how democratic a country is, no country should support a politician running on an explicit premise of persecution.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Speaking of nosy people, apparently my opinions are good enough to be top 10 in the NY Times on this issue.

As I say in that comment, not even completely on board with Bernie, I just am so tired about the idea that things can't change in the USA.

Show off

[SciFiFisher]

What I am trying to figure out is how the media is allowed to essentially offer Trump unequal access and coverage that they do not provide to all the other candidates? It seems to me that Trump has not had to spend any of his own money publicizing his campaign because the media is essentially giving him free advertising. Which is a violation of this law http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/policy/pol ... ndrule.htm

Section 73.1941 [47 CFR §73.1941] Equal Opportunities.



(a) General requirements. Except as other-wise indicated in § 73.1944, no station licensee is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any:



(1) Bona fide newscast;



(2) Bona fide news interview;



(3) Bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary); or



(4) On-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including, but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto) shall not be deemed to be use of broadcasting station. (section 315(a) of the Communications Act.)



(b) Uses. As used in this section and § 73.1942, the term "use" means a candidate appearance (including by voice or picture) that is not exempt under paragraphs 73.1941 (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.



(c) Timing of request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the licensee within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred: Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.



(d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the licensee or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.



(e) Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

[57 FR 208, Jan. 3, 1992; 59 FR 14568, March 29, 1994]

[vendic]

People learn basically two ways, reward or punishment.
The only thing they learn when ignored is they are worthless.
That last sentence is why Bernie and Trump are making such waves.
Voting in the establishment which does nothing but serve the rich yet again, will just change the public from feeling worthless to despair. We are not that far from it already. That's an ugly long road to go down that in the long run will do far more damage than Trump ever could.
As almost every President has found,the job is not as easy as people think. You have to get support of the rest of the politicians. The Republicans have time and time demonstrated that fact during Obama's Presidency.
IOW, a President can only do so much unsupported.

That is why I would rather have Trump as President than Hillary.
To me she represents what is wrong with American politics.
She talks the talk of the common people while walking, serving and envying the gardens of the American pseudo royalty.

[Cyborg Girl]

Huh. @Fisher, that is very interesting and thank you for raising it.

There was also a thing mentioned on NPR, wherein companies like CNN were not allowing clips of poltiical debates etc. into the public domain. That might qualify as censorship, if I'm reading the quoted text correctly. Especially if the clips they're licensing out are preferentially Trump clips...

That is why I would rather have Trump as President than Hillary.
To me she represents what is wrong with American politics.
She talks the talk of the common people while walking, serving and envying the gardens of the American pseudo royalty.

You raise a good point re: the President's limited power, but I have to disagree vehemently on this. The Presidential office still has a lot of power, including military power. I do not trust a guy like Trump to hold back with that, nor do I trust him to be happy with the Presidency's current limits. And the same applies for Cruz.

[Swift]

That is why I would rather have Trump as President than Hillary.
To me she represents what is wrong with American politics.
She talks the talk of the common people while walking, serving and envying the gardens of the American pseudo royalty.

I understand your point, but that is so horrific idea to me (Trump as president) that I could never vote for him, or cast a vote that I thought would lead to his election. I recognize at least some of the problems with American politics (as you describe them), but to me that is like teaching the baby to swim by tossing it in a lake of lava. A Trump presidency would make Nixon look like a freaking saint.

Unless there are significant changes, I will vote for Bernie in the Ohio primary, and I will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election. I am a very pragmatic person, and that seems to be the best choices given what we got. If circumstances change significantly, I may change my plan.

I am not going to try to convince anyone else to do anything, I'm too tired of it already, and I'm way beyond tired of fighting. I know I suggested on Facebook moving this discussion here, but I'm not sure if I have the strength for a vicorous debate. I know I don't have the desire for one.

[vendic]

I didn't think we were debating, rather clarifying our positions.
We're all known each other way too long for us to make a serious attempt at changing another's opinion. Correcting misconceptions is about the limit of it.

The reality is that we all want the same thing. For the people of America to get the best deal they can.
Where we disagree is what the best way to achieve that is and what the potential problems are going one way or another and the severity of those problems.
I just rate Trump as a lower risk in the long run than Hillary. In the short term however that is reversed. She's the lower risk.
Then we have to rate the severity of the risk and I just don't believe Trump will devastate the USA in the short term.
However, getting yet more established politicians not representing the people again in office, in the long run will.

In some ways I think people that are thinking Trump will destroy the USA are in the same boat as those that thought Obama would bring in death camps. Over exaggerated.

[geonuc]

What swift said, except I'm leaning towards Clinton. Georgia already started early voting. I believe the primary is this Tuesday and polls show Clinton with a substantial lead here at the moment. We all know how that can change.

The Bush/Cheney administration radically changed the course of this country in a very bad direction. Trump is far, far more dangerous. Hillary Clinton is basically a rerun of Bill Clinton and the country fared pretty well under his presidency. Except for the interns.

[Swift]

I didn't think we were debating, rather clarifying our positions.
We're all known each other way too long for us to make a serious attempt at changing another's opinion. Correcting misconceptions is about the limit of it.

yes

I just rate Trump as a lower risk in the long run than Hillary. In the short term however that is reversed. She's the lower risk.
Then we have to rate the severity of the risk and I just don't believe Trump will devastate the USA in the short term.
However, getting yet more established politicians not representing the people again in office, in the long run will.

In some ways I think people that are thinking Trump will destroy the USA are in the same boat as those that thought Obama would bring in death camps. Over exaggerated.

I am more than a little alarmed that you are comparing me to Obama death camp believers. I don't know if I should be alarmed that the comparison is correct and I'm that insane, or what.

I don't know what to make of Trump. I've never liked the guy, for as long as I've paid attention to him, I thought he was mostly just a con man and a glorified used-car salesmen. A schumk who loved money and himself too much, but otherwise of no serious threat to me. I never thought he was a fascist, I never thought he was insane.

But his campaign really scares me; the shit that his coming out of his mouth. And it isn't even the foul language, but the actual ideas he proposing. I find him and his ideas terrifying.

Now given that he is a con man, maybe it is all just a ploy, a sales pitch to get himself the Republican nomination, and after he gets that, he will back-off from the nonsense, try to sell himself as a centrist, so as to win the election. But then you are left not knowing which of any of these is the "real" Trump. We might have ourselves the first "carney" President.

Or maybe he will actually do the crazy shit he says, which would probably get us into multiple international wars, among other horrors.

I'm not sure what you mean by short term and long term. I understand that the the power broker, career politician like Hillary, who will pander to anyone to get elected, is one of the fundamental problems with our system. But I don't think she'll get us all nuked by Putin.

I could see Trump either getting us nuked, or into a civil war, or god knows what. In that case, there is no long term.

Maybe the fact that I think such things makes me a equivalent to an Obama-death-camp believer; I don't think so, but what do I know.

[Cyborg Girl]

@Swift

Putin has indicated he likes Trump. Not sure if that can be taken at face value, though. And I doubt that "like" would extend to things like mercy.

(Though my own suspicion is that he knows he's hated in the US, and is therefore obliquely putting his weight behind more moderate candidates by "voicing support" for Trump. I may be reading too much into it, or hoping too much; but while Putin is a complete shitheel, he is definitely not an idiot. I would assume he wants a President who can be reasoned with.)

(Then again, I haven't been following Russian news very much. So YMMV.)

Edit: other than that though, you basically said everything I wanted to, only much more coherently.

[geonuc]

I don't think Putin gives a crap whether the US president can be reasoned with. Did he care when he annexed the Crimea? No. He knew that despite our very reasonable president's protests, there was fuck-all we or anyone else could do about it.

Now, what do you think President Trump would do if pro-Russian rebels in the Ukraine shoot down an American airliner?

[Cyborg Girl]

I don't think Putin gives a crap whether the US president can be reasoned with. Did he care when he annexed the Crimea? No. He knew that despite our very reasonable president's protests, there was fuck-all we or anyone else could do about it.

You mean fuck-all that we could do reasonably do about it. But yes, that's a good point.

Now, what do you think President Trump would do if pro-Russian rebels in the Ukraine shoot down an American airliner?

Spout a lot of bombastic rhetoric, win support from Congress for another war, and invade an unrelated country in the same geographic region? Just a guess, I honestly have no idea.

Edit: just BTW, I kind of want to make clear that I don't want to start an argument. Sorry if I've said something stupid/offensive.

[SciFi Chick]

There's a conspiracy floating around the interwebz, that Trump is doing all of this in order to make certain that Hillary gets elected. Apparently, they've been friends for years, and he wants the Republican nomination so she can win. It's an interesting conspiracy theory as far as they go.

[vendic]

I am more than a little alarmed that you are comparing me to Obama death camp believers. I don't know if I should be alarmed that the comparison is correct and I'm that insane, or what...

I could see Trump either getting us nuked, or into a civil war, or god knows what. In that case, there is no long term.

Maybe the fact that I think such things makes me a equivalent to an Obama-death-camp believer; I don't think so, but what do I know.

When I wrote the above I had no idea you thought Trump winning could spell the end of civilization. To me that is the same thing as people arguing the same for Obama. It doesn't mean you're insane anymore than my belief that if things continue as they are, there will be a massive destructive force. The difference is that you find Trump more likely to bring that about where I believe continuing with the status quo is what will do it.

It's just a question of probability and I think mine is the more likely, you think you're is.