DescentBB

As a Californian, I'm still weeks away from being able to vote in the Democratic primary. My now irrelevant vote will still go to Sanders, even though the rest of the country has already chosen Hillary.

If Hillary were facing off against Jeb! or Rubio, my choice would be fairly easy. Slow, methodical, positive change in some key areas, but basically the neoliberal, neoconservative status quo vs slow, methodical, negative change in some key areas, but basically the neoliberal, neoconservative status quo. Either way, the continued growth of extra-sovereign corporate power and an interventionist foreign policy would be on tap. The difference would be the small things, and those small things do matter, but on truly world defining issues, it'd generally be a wash.

But with Trump, we may never see such an idiotic buffoon get this close ever again. The powers that be will likely correct the system to prevent such a thing from occurring in the future. This might be a now or never opportunity. To be sure, I think a Trump presidency would be an utter disaster. It would bring harm to us. It would likely rob the United States of much power and standing. But it's that power and standing that allows us to perpetuate the neoliberal, neoconservative status quo.

I'm of the opinion that time is running out for the radical changes necessary if we're going to continue to exist as a species. We now know the limits of what we have to work with on this tiny rock spinning through space. The entrenched power of this country is a constant blockade against necessary change. I want to blow that up.

I guess I'm still deciding whether reducing US global dominance will reduce global corporate dominance (of which US global dominance is a means), or if global corporate dominance will find other means to fill the vacuum. I guess it doesn't really matter if I believe global corporate dominance is a dead end anyways.

Basically, harm the country to maybe save the species. I don't think that's masochistic, is it? It's dangerous thinking, absolutely. Can someone tell me why I shouldn't do this? I'll probably end up voting for Clinton, but I'm strongly considering a Trump vote to help burn it all down.

Vander, I see your reasoning, but cannot bring myself to willfully destroy the underpinnings of a pretty sound design of government in order to fix problems that flowed from that design. As you say, Clinton offers another tepid term of noodling around the edges, but not changing either the economic or international playing field. However, as someone noted elsewhere the other day, to choose Trump is akin to hiring an arsonist to put out a few smaller fires.

why would you want to help destroy something that's proven to be malleable and mouldable?

callmeslick wrote:Trump is akin to hiring an arsonist to put out a few smaller fires.

For me to follow this analogy, the building is a pay day loan office. I don't want to leave the impression that I want to burn all of America to the ground. I just want to take it down a peg or three in the hope that alternatives may take hold rather than be smothered. The alternatives might suck, too, but we'd never know.

Ferno wrote:why would you want to help destroy something that's proven to be malleable and mouldable?

Time and opportunity, basically.

My big bugaboo is the inability to adequately assign a commercial price to integral parts of our ecosystem. Markets can't price these things properly, so we have to rely on government. Governments, however, are owned by the marketeers, either directly, or through the ownership of the information services democracies rely on to make decisions. This is a problem that has a very definite time limit, even if it isn't known exactly. I don't have a good fix for this, but the longer we kick this particular can down the road, the worse off we'll be.

We'll get 4-8 years of Hillary and then the system will puke up another couple status quo - change at the margins candidates. On the Democratic side, the nomination process is biased toward established power. If Republicans can recover, do you think they're going to allow another Trump to break through? The American corporate-military-political complex isn't going anywhere anytime soon. So Trump, to me, might signify a unique opportunity to rob it of some of the power and influence. My vote for Trump wouldn't do anything to directly address the issues I see as important, it just possibly damages the power block preventing the address of the issues.

I think you nailed it, Vander. IMO you have to weigh the importance of the disruption against the risk. You need to ask yourself just what is being disrupted. I think war is very likely one thing it would disrupt. People say Trump would be dangerous with regard to foreign policy, but I see this as a disingenuous claim--I think we're being moved toward war now, and I don't see Trump supporting it.

I don't see a Trump presidency actually doing damage to the country. This IMO is alarmist or deliberately misrepresented. I think it will do significant mischief to certain "progress" we are supposed to believe is what we want (politics is basically all about being convinced that the pet policies of the elected are tied to our interests, and hugely important to our happiness).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I don't see a Trump presidency actually doing damage to the country.

This is the exact point of my departure. I wouldn't consider voting for Trump if I thought his election wouldn't damage the country.

Define damage.

Vander wrote:As a Californian, I'm still weeks away from being able to vote in the Democratic primary. My now irrelevant vote will still go to Sanders, even though the rest of the country has already chosen Hillary.

If Hillary were facing off against Jeb! or Rubio, my choice would be fairly easy. Slow, methodical, positive change in some key areas, but basically the neoliberal, neoconservative status quo vs slow, methodical, negative change in some key areas, but basically the neoliberal, neoconservative status quo. Either way, the continued growth of extra-sovereign corporate power and an interventionist foreign policy would be on tap. The difference would be the small things, and those small things do matter, but on truly world defining issues, it'd generally be a wash.

But with Trump, we may never see such an idiotic buffoon get this close ever again. The powers that be will likely correct the system to prevent such a thing from occurring in the future. This might be a now or never opportunity. To be sure, I think a Trump presidency would be an utter disaster. It would bring harm to us. It would likely rob the United States of much power and standing. But it's that power and standing that allows us to perpetuate the neoliberal, neoconservative status quo.

I'm of the opinion that time is running out for the radical changes necessary if we're going to continue to exist as a species. We now know the limits of what we have to work with on this tiny rock spinning through space. The entrenched power of this country is a constant blockade against necessary change. I want to blow that up.

I guess I'm still deciding whether reducing US global dominance will reduce global corporate dominance (of which US global dominance is a means), or if global corporate dominance will find other means to fill the vacuum. I guess it doesn't really matter if I believe global corporate dominance is a dead end anyways.

Basically, harm the country to maybe save the species. I don't think that's masochistic, is it? It's dangerous thinking, absolutely. Can someone tell me why I shouldn't do this? I'll probably end up voting for Clinton, but I'm strongly considering a Trump vote to help burn it all down.

smoking the weed again I see.

A lot of what people are pissed off about with the government is because congress has frozen up and basically ground the whole system to a halt. Trump would only make the situation worse, neither party in congress would be willing to let him get away with anything. People voted for the tea party to "shake things up" in the same way they are voting for Trump to "shake things up", but in both cases all they are actually voting for is more useless gridlock and non action. The majority of Republicans at this point need to re-evaluate their party name, "Anarchists" would be a much more appropriate name at the moment.

If you want to get something done, you have to elect people who will make the system work instead of electing people who are expressly intent on disrupting or preventing the system from working.

How much damage would Trump do as president? I don't think anyone knows, but the risk is extremely high with two out of the three branches of the federal government currently being almost fully incapacitated. Either he would strong arm his way through everything and we end up being a de facto dictatorship after 4+ years, or his tactics don't work at all and international corporations take advantage of the power vacuum to seize even more control.

No Krom, we already have a dictator in the White House. Just ask all the school districts across the country how they feel about how Obama just used Title 9 to strong arm transgender bathrooms and locker rooms in schools

I'm in support of a Trump presidency insofar as it would help along certain independence movements. #cascadia #cascadianow

why do you people hate America so much? I mean, I see a lot that needs fixing, but damn, I don't have any desire to see the whole structure of the Constitutional construct destroyed.

We're not looking at the structure slick. We're looking to get the same old same olds out of office.

Krom wrote:A lot of what people are pissed off about with the government is because congress has frozen up and basically ground the whole system to a halt. Trump would only make the situation worse, neither party in congress would be willing to let him get away with anything. People voted for the tea party to "shake things up" in the same way they are voting for Trump to "shake things up", but in both cases all they are actually voting for is more useless gridlock and non action. The majority of Republicans at this point need to re-evaluate their party name, "Anarchists" would be a much more appropriate name at the moment.

If you want to get something done, you have to elect people who will make the system work instead of electing people who are expressly intent on disrupting or preventing the system from working.

How much damage would Trump do as president? I don't think anyone knows, but the risk is extremely high with two out of the three branches of the federal government currently being almost fully incapacitated. Either he would strong arm his way through everything and we end up being a de facto dictatorship after 4+ years, or his tactics don't work at all and international corporations take advantage of the power vacuum to seize even more control.

I don't think you could be more wrong about gridlock, Krom. People are going to want to work with Trump, and the reason is he's successful and capable, and they're not going to want to sit on their thumbs and look like the incompetent class idiot. Our political system has lacked maturity on a certain level, and Trump will be the grown-up in the White House. It's like bringing in new blood at a job--someone who really knows their stuff--now the old crew doesn't get to sit around clocking time and getting away with less than their best.

ST, it is already happening:

Billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson is reportedly willing to give Donald Trump as much as $100 million for his presidential campaign -- a purported record-setting amount for the wealth casino magnate.

more misinformation, Thorne. Trump is, first off, NOT a sucessful businessman. He is a serial failure who has burned billions in other peoples money. Plus, Woody cites a known right wing, pro-Israel war hawk who is a fellow sleazeball from the casino business, as proof of some sort of reputable support. For the record, both Adelson and Trump's name have come up in the Panama papers, it seems, as offshoring money to avoid taxes, and both support tax shelters utilizing offshore islands for their gambling operations. Fine examples, both, of people with utterly ZERO interest in the average American worker's well-being.

from MarketWatch--
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-wo ... 2016-03-04

And how do we know your name is on a off shore list. I like how everone on the right is a sleaze ball, those on the left are angels. I notice how you never paint Bill Clinton as a sleaze ball yet he far surpasses Trump in that arena.

Bill Clinton isn't running for any office. Had you encountered me 20 years ago, I had plenty to say about him, both good and bad. The names appearing in the Panama papers are coming out, if you dig even a wee bit.

He may not be running for office but he'll be in there advising his equally slimy wife.

Krom wrote:...If you want to get something done, you have to elect people who will make the system work instead of electing people who are expressly intent on disrupting or preventing the system from working.

That's the most accurate statement about our government's problems I've heard to date. That's why I think Republicans will never have a solution, because all they want to do is destroy or get rid of government, not fix it's problems so it actually works like it's supposed to. Now that mantra is a solid part of their political DNA. To them, government is just an impediment to their freedom and not needed as a protector of everyone's freedom. Trump is currently mouthing what the tea party wants to hear: "Get that government out of my life", so he's only going to further that agenda if he gets elected. Besides, he's a Plutocrat who wants to do things that benefit him and those in his class, not everyone else who doesn't make the grade, in other words, losers. I also don't I think that the modern Democratic Party will give a rat's behind and come up with ways to fix things either. Hillary will be more of the same insular, intransigent Washington thinking that we've been dealing with for decades now.

callmeslick wrote:Bill Clinton isn't running for any office. Had you encountered me 20 years ago, I had plenty to say about him, both good and bad. The names appearing in the Panama papers are coming out, if you dig even a wee bit.

She just stated a few weeks ago that she wants Bill to have some part in her presidency. That's even one of the reasons people don't want her as president and one of the main reasons I don't want her as president, HIM anywhere NEAR the White House.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... nt/284574/

http://nj1015.com/hillary-clinton-has-p ... president/

tunnelcat wrote:

Krom wrote:...If you want to get something done, you have to elect people who will make the system work instead of electing people who are expressly intent on disrupting or preventing the system from working.

That's the most accurate statement about our government's problems I've heard to date. That's why I think Republicans will never have a solution, because all they want to do is destroy or get rid of government, not fix it's problems so it actually works like it's supposed to. Now that mantra is a solid part of their political DNA. To them, government is just an impediment to their freedom and not needed as a protector of everyone's freedom. Trump is currently mouthing what the tea party wants to hear: "Get that government out of my life", so he's only going to further that agenda if he gets elected. Besides, he's a Plutocrat who wants to do things that benefit him and those in his class, not everyone else who doesn't make the grade, in other words, losers. I also don't I think that the modern Democratic Party will give a rat's behind and come up with ways to fix things either. Hillary will be more of the same insular, intransigent Washington thinking that we've been dealing with for decades now.

callmeslick wrote:Bill Clinton isn't running for any office. Had you encountered me 20 years ago, I had plenty to say about him, both good and bad. The names appearing in the Panama papers are coming out, if you dig even a wee bit.

She just stated a few weeks ago that she wants Bill to have some part in her presidency. That's even one of the reasons people don't want her as president and one of the main reasons I don't want her as president, HIM anywhere NEAR the White House.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... nt/284574/

http://nj1015.com/hillary-clinton-has-p ... president/

Well, thanks to Woody and his Trumptard friends...we'll have Hillary in the White House in 2017.

No, thanks to me and like minded voters we will see a real man at the helm (and no I don't mean Pretty Boy Bill)

Meh, I guess I'll chime in too.

I don't think a Trump presidency will be a disaster. In fact I doubt it would be much different than Obama's. The Legislative Branch's fracturing and failure to find compromise is the biggest problem the country faces, from a practical standpoint. Much of the hysteria surrounding the office of the President is directly rooted in problems with Congress and the Senate. Any grand plan that Trump has will wither away just like Obama's. Some people think we need a "leader" to fix this, but that is not going to happen, and the reason why is in my next point.

America isn't the disaster people think, though it certainly has a lot of problems. This country is most successful when we mobilize around a cause at the ground level. Women's suffrage, The Civil Rights movement, green energy, gay marriage, and most recently the increasing tolerance of marijuana are perfect examples of how bottom-up movements prove that positive change can happen. What rarely works is the top-down model or any type of authoritarianism. This is why we will never elect a leader who can fix our problems. That's not how our country works. We need to do it ourselves. We need to huddle around some good ideas and work together, all of us, and move forward. There are plenty of good ideas out there we can all agree on. Getting money out of campaigns would be a good one to tackle next.

In closing, I think all the candidates will do a fair job. As much as I think Donald Trump is an absolute turd of a man I don't have any worry about him as president. Or Mrs Clinton, or Mr Sanders, and I still like Mr Cruz, Mr Kasich, and Jeb! too. Presidential politics is a distraction and does have some entertainment value, but when I catch myself in a group of people talking about who leads the country I am sure to remind everyone about the reality I mentioned above. Get involved in local politics to make the change you want to see in the world.

Nightshade wrote:Well, thanks to Woody and his Trumptard friends...we'll have Hillary in the White House in 2017.

Which is worse? Hillary or Trump in your mind?

tunnelcat wrote:

Nightshade wrote:Well, thanks to Woody and his Trumptard friends...we'll have Hillary in the White House in 2017.

Which is worse? Hillary or Trump in your mind?

You really got me there TC.

Hillary would more or less continue what Obama has tried to do and a bit more of a known quantity...oh gawd...she'll suck.

Trump is a total unknown in many ways- but he will be a total disappointment to the multitudes that supported him...and he'll suck in different ways. Like drawing a penis in pencil and tweeting it to Putin.

callmeslick wrote:more misinformation, Thorne. Trump is, first off, NOT a successful businessman. He is a serial failure who has burned billions in other peoples money.

Burning other people's money while you're worth billions is classifiable as failure?

callmeslick wrote:Plus, Woody cites a known right wing, pro-Israel war hawk who is a fellow sleazeball from the casino business, as proof of some sort of reputable support.

Only a failure would garner this kind of support!

I'm having fun, but I really don't think you could classify Trump as unsuccessful without shaming reality. You could say he's not an absolutely brilliant businessman... I never said he was gifted, I said he was successful, and I wasn't just talking about income.

callmeslick wrote:For the record, both Adelson and Trump's name have come up in the Panama papers, it seems, as offshoring money to avoid taxes, and both support tax shelters utilizing offshore islands for their gambling operations. Fine examples, both, of people with utterly ZERO interest in the average American worker's well-being.

I think claiming that trying to avoid taxation is being against American workers is pretty thin. I think they probably did it so they could keep more of their money. I know a lady who's husband lives outside of the country to avoid taxation on his wealth. Does he hate Americans or just want to keep more of his money?

Ooh, ooh! Pick me, pick me! That's the sound of all the new Trump butt kissing that was going on during news shows this morning by both Newt Gingrich and Jeff Sessions, who were practically salivating at the prospect that they might be picked by Trump as his VP choice. How quickly the Trump hate chorus has evaporated among the Republican power seekers.

well, if you think either Gingrich or Sessions is anything other than a regional showpiece and in one case completely irrelevant, go for it.

Well I heard Chris Christie might also be a choice for VP. I think he is as toxic as Palin and wouldn't touch him with slicks 10 foot pole

this should be unsettling.......the Tax Cheat runs for President.
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/new ... /84543538/

This should also be unsettling...fraudulent filer running for president

“As they have done since January 2001, trustees of the Clinton Foundation recently released certain federal tax filings, including accounting work product falsely characterized as ‘independent certified audits,’ that are inaccurate and materially misleading, and failed to make important disclosures that are material omissions,”

http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/clinton-foun ... -with-irs/

callmeslick wrote:this should be unsettling.......the Tax Cheat runs for President.
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/new ... /84543538/

Most people really have no basis to properly judge these kinds of activities. Anyone in the middle to lower class (for the greater part) just pays the taxes they're asked to pay. Tax Cheats among the average American are the people who fudge the numbers come tax time. This is a major business that has the clout to contest the assessments of the government with regard to their significant assets. I think it could come home most easily by comparing it to a car sale. A car salesman can swear up and down that his stated price is what the car is worth, but everyone knows it's "worth" what he is ultimately willing to sell it for to make the sale. Obviously that's not perfectly analogous, but it certainly applies in that value is not set as simply and concretely as some people would like you to think, and just as contesting that value in the case of a car sale does not make you a thief, so also having the power to contest the taxable value of property and doing so in the interest of your business does not necessarily make you a cheat.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Most people really have no basis to properly judge these kinds of activities.

What a shitty rationalization for making it acceptable for rich people with clout to work the system. You should be embarrassed.

If there was a rationalization in there it wasn't that bit... I was stating there that this is not a ballgame most Americans witness or even know the rules to. In my opinion this article is purposely trying to oversimplify the issue to simple people, and presenting it in an environment free of context (comparable practices elsewhere), in order to make it outrageous and damning when it isn't.

woodchip wrote:We're not looking at the structure slick. We're looking to get the same old same olds out of office.

no, you are supporting a person with ZERO knowledge of how the government is set up, and seems(from his own words) to think that the job of President is that of dictator. NOTHING you are doing is going to affect the makeup of Congress, wherein the BULK(the overwhelming bulk) of the issues lie.

so, bottlom line, YOU(or that collective, dimwitted, 'we') may not be looking at the constitutional design of your government,but you better start, before you make a really bad choice.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If there was a rationalization in there it wasn't that bit... I was stating there that this is not a ballgame most Americans witness or even know the rules to. In my opinion this article is purposely trying to oversimplify the issue to simple people, and presenting it in an environment free of context (comparable practices elsewhere), in order to make it outrageous and damning when it isn't.

well, to some extent, I play that game, and hang with a lot of folks who play more of the precise game that Trump is in. There are legitimate tax shelters, loopholes and dodges. Then, there is what Trump is accused and investigated for doing, which is NOT legitimate, likely not legal, and the sort of thing decent people(yes, most rich people are decent humans, too) would find disgustingly greedy.

If Trump was a tax “cheat” he would most likely be in jail.

The IRS loves to make examples of people like him.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Our political system has lacked maturity on a certain level, and Trump will be the grown-up in the White House.

This might be my favorite quote.

Spidey wrote:The IRS loves to make examples of people like him.

Yes, the IRS hates "strong christians."

No, I meant wealthy public figures, you going to go all stupid on me now too?