Yes exactly, if his racism and sexism isn’t enough to dissuade you then please consider the impact he could have on the rest of the world, including the US closest allies.
I’m far less concerned about what Trump himself would do so much as what his election would legitimize. I fear that as soon as a Trump election happened we’d be treated to the pure, unrestrained id of the worst bigots in America because suddenly that’s what America “is”.
To be fair, I don’t think we’d be in the dread wastes for long and people would go somewhat back to normal over a few weeks, but there’d be this undercurrent that now bigotry is “okay” because it’s “normal” since Trump is the candidate the people decided on.
This is all aside from the looming foreign diplomacy disasters.
It’s not as if America is alone in seeing a rise in this kind of politics. Is there any European nation where such parties aren’t gaining ground?
Nah. Two or three seats on the Supreme Court that will shape it for a generation is the big picture.
In four years there might be one or none, and the Supreme Court doesn’t make law, it interprets existing law. It’s not as important as some people make out.
And as for Trumpism abroad:
The new UK foreign minister said Obama hates Britain because of his Kenyan ancestry.
An epic defeat followed by small midterm losses could prompt a re-evaluation. Maybe. The first could happen. So could the second.
Remember that when Trump’s electoral loss will be followed by him successfully being sued for elder abuse in the Trump University case. Then he will pivot and try to exploit his email list, with some success. He will look more and more ridiculous, like Sarah Palin. So for every ridiculous verbal attack on Hillary, there will be a riposte: yeah I bet you would have preferred Trump!
I don’t buy the scenario sketched in the OP. As I see it elections are driven by fundamentals, after allowing for black swans like Donald Trump. While large midterm losses can always occur, I don’t see how Clinton would necessarily enable them.
Our goal should be to push Trump below 35%, to put fear into the hearts of those who would support future demagogues. That seems unlikely now, but not impossible. Maybe it’s up to Gary Johnson to save the Republic.
Boris Johnson is an unholy union of Donald Trump and Moe of the Three Stooges.
At least one (I doubt we’ll see Garland happen but maybe), probably two just looking at people’s ages.
You’re welcome to discount the importance of it but I strongly disagree with you.
But, but…in that other thread, you’re having a conniption because a Justice pointed out that Trump is an asshole.
Does not compute.
The Democrats have an opportunity to not only reverse a period of judicial conservatism but augment the liberal wings of the courts. I also suspect that the national electorate is getting closer to the point where California was a few years ago: fed up with republican obstructionism to the point of giving democrats a decisive majority in government.
I think we’re getting closer to that point. We might have to wait longer than California did, as we are nationally a more politically diverse nation than California is as a state, but the demographics are shaping up in favor of a more progressive era in politics. Giving Trump the presidency would be a serious blow to whatever liberals would like to accomplish 4 to 8 years from now.
OP, you might want read about the history of FDR in the 1930s and how, despite having a strong political mandate to radically overhaul the role of government involvement in the national economy, Supreme Court justices who were far more conservative repeatedly swatted down New Deal legislation. It took the threat of Court packing to brush back the Supreme Court and decide that certain matters were better left as “political questions.” But FDR’s mandate was far stronger than any mandate a candidate in 2020 or 2024 is likely to have, and it took him 6 years to finally get the New Deal approved by Courts. There’s no guarantee a democrat elected in 2020 would be re-elected in 2024 either.
That aside, consider the damage that George W Bush did to our economy and national security in a matter of 4-6 years in office. Trump is the least qualified presidential nominee of all time – ever. Worse, he is the least qualified candidate at a time when the complexity associated with the role has never been greater. The fact that Trump is good at what he does (shameless self-promotion and marketing) doesn’t make him a fit for the Oval Office. Joel Osteen might be a successful TV minister but you wouldn’t dare argue he’s qualified to be the CEO of Google.
Well said.
As to the OP: You want another reason not to vote Trump? Brexit, a perfectly tailored warning to US voters of what happens when enough citizens are manipulated with lies, fear, and bigotry. Or when people try to make what they think is a meaningless protest vote. Have you seen the UK citizens on the BBC saying “well, I didn’t think Brexit would actually pass, and I’d vote the other way if there was a do-over.” John Oliver said it best: “There are no fucking do-overs.” The presidency is too damn important to try to game the system by electing someone like Trump.
Hillary may not be a paragon of hope and decency, but she can do the job and do it well. The Republicans have been going steadily crazier for at least fifteen years, and now they’re in the middle of a self destruct. It doesn’t matter whether the ship is on steady waters or in the middle of a storm, you don’t give the helm to the raving lunatic stowaway, ever.
Presidential votes don’t happen very often, and electing the president is at least to a degree, an endorsement. Yes, we’re often voting for the lesser of two evils. But we’re still telling the winner that we want them to be the face of the country, that they’re the best choice we could put in the big chair. Do you really want to say that to the bigoted, ignorant buffoon who either lies or steps in dog shit every time he opens his mouth? You want him to represent us globally, to guide policy, to make SCOTUS appointments, to sign whatever crazy bills the Republicans put under his nose, and to ignore climate change and human rights summits?
The stakes are too high. I often wonder what things would have been like if Gore had won in 2000, and it makes me angry. I’m terrified about what’s going to happen in November. Even if I had the infallible, magic mathamancy bracer from Erfworld and it gave Trump a 0.01% chance of winning, I would still be terrified because it was non-zero. Trump winning would be very, very bad for the country, even if the Democrats took the Senate and the House. Trump isn’t smart enough to do as much damage as Ted Cruz would have, but that’s just comparing letting John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy watch the kids tonight.
It’s your vote, and you can do whatever you like with it. But from one voter to another, pretty please don’t vote Trump?
I’m glad you are not letting speculation get the better of you.
If Hillary wins she may turn out to be a terrible President who guarantees Republican victories in 2018 and 2020, but Obama was a good President and he never brought much success for the Democratic Party in 2010 and 2014.
I think the absolute worst thing about Trump is what you said above: you don’t think he means what he says. He means what he says. He wants to be confrontational with people that are not white and uneducated. He would have the strongest military in human history at his command. If the Bush and Obama approaches to international belligerency were the two reasonable ends of the spectrum, I think there is a serious risk of Trump redefining the aggressive end of the spectrum and he might make McCain and Graham look like doves. I know Trump says he will talk, but how does Trump react when you don’t behave the way he wants you to?
And there is almost no more important role of the President than picking Supreme Court Justices. The Supreme Court has been the only defense women and people who identify as LGBT have had against a huge number of laws passed primarily in red states to restrict abortion and impinging upon the dignity of LGBT Americans. This strategy of getting their agenda passed at the local level can only be defended against by a healthy court system. Any Republican victory, especially a know-nothing Trump victory, will endanger that for decades to come.
More than ever, vote on what the candidates are promising and not on what you speculate might happen in 4 years or later.
Does anyone really think that the Republican Party that neutered itself with a rusty railroad spike and decided that bowing down to Trump was worth the cost of winning the election would suddenly find it’s cojones and move to impeach that tribble with a massive ass tumor if he did something that would/could injure this nation? If he gets elected the Republicans will back his ass up no matter what he does, guaranteed.
Trumpy B. Goode
Go Trumpy Go Go Go Go…
I’m not explaining the rules to you.
I agree-- that is THE ONE THING many of us would be pleased with coming out of a Trump administration.
Looking at his official list, what is there to be pleased about?
Here’s the first guy on the list. Looks eminently qualified, wouldn’t you say?
(Attributable to nobody according to our fellow Doper, the
[Quote Investigator]
(Quote Origin: It’s Difficult to Make Predictions, Especially About the Future – Quote Investigator®).)
Who in the 2000 election saw 9/11 coming? Make up your own long list of other surprises that shook the country and made the choice of president critical. And made the following election problematic.
Vote the proper president for now. You can’t game future elections.
There are so many judges out there with qualifications like that, so I’m pretty sure those aren’t the sole reason he got approved by The American Heritage Foundation and Trump. There’s a write-up of Colloton and his other picks here that gives us a good reason to distrust his choices.
Roe v Wade isn’t going to be overturned, but it honestly wouldn’t bother me if it was. It should have been a policy issue decided by the legislatures, preferably of the states.
I don’t understand the “problem” with the fact that there are lots of other justices like hime. He was confirmed for the federal bench almost unanimously by the Senate, and they know that’s a stepping stone to the SCOTUS.
That statement almost defies a serious response. It sounds like it describes some kind of delusional alternate reality. Or perhaps you’re thinking of some other country where the Supreme Court has not become a blatant instrument of politics.
In the real world, just in recent years and just for a few examples, the Supreme Court has overturned major campaign finance laws and fundamentally changed the political landscape by opening the floodgates to unlimited influence by the very wealthy, much more firmly entrenched the plague of guns in society by purporting to read the minds of the Founders on the purpose of guns and defying a century of jurisprudence by declaring them to be individual rights for personal purposes, and not once but twice came very close to overturning the most important advance in health care since Medicare and rendering millions of Americans without health care. Oh, and appointed a president in 2000. No, not important at all. :rolleyes:
OTOH, Canada just threw a right-wing Prime Minister out on his ass with such overwhelming decisiveness that he quit politics altogether, and elected into majority power one of the most progressive PMs we’ve seen in at least a generation, so there’s that. The world is not all going crazy.
Fundamental human rights are not a “policy issue”. At the present time Roe v Wade is the only thing preventing some states from passing blanket unconditional anti-abortion laws with no end of horrific short-term and long-term consequences.