Reasons I cannot vote for Trump

[scaredyclassic]

with so many seniors running nowadays, is it not unlikely that someone could croak before nov.? nobody would write a life insurance policy on these fosSils. seems weird how only geriatrics can compete.

[zk]

[quote=livinincali]
Well played progressive liberal guilt card. Better vote for Hillary so we aren’t labeled a sexist. Anything but Trump so we aren’t labeled a racist.[/quote]

Liberal guilt card? You’re seeing things. And, with the Trump/racist comment, you’re making stuff up out of thin air.

As I said, the fox news-watching crowd is not my concern on this issue because they’re brainwashed beyond repair. Your post is evidence of that brainwashing. Just like your ill-informed comments on global warming. Thanks for illustrating my point for me. If all you have is right-wing talking points (they’re playing the liberal guilt card!!! They’re saying if you vote for Trump you’re a racist!!! Global warming is a religion!!!), you’re only illustrating your inability to think on your own and illustrating the right-wing noise machine’s success in brainwashing you.

[zk]

[quote=spdrun]I dislike Hillary exactly because of her chumminess with the more destructive Wall Street elements. I’d like her to choose another loud/outspoken woman (Elizabeth Warren) as VP, then be forced to resign “due to personal reasons” a week into her term.[/quote]

I dislike that about her also. But I don’t venomously hate her.

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]Great way to avoid the question. Attack it.[/quote]

It’s not a question. It’s a hypothetical that attempts attempts to influence you into thinking you’re sexist. It infers that if Hillary was a man her various transgressions would be ignored, or at least tolerated. Maybe in the past that would be the case but she represents the corrupt politics Americans are growing to hate. It’s that hatred of the corruption that is her problem, not because she’s a woman. I think PC crowd would love to have a woman president but not at the expense of another self interested corrupt politician. At this point probably more than half of the country want neither as a choice.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]As I said, the fox news-watching crowd is not my concern on this issue because they’re brainwashed beyond repair. Your post is evidence of that brainwashing. [/quote]

It’s not brainwashing at all. It’s just a difference of ideology. You’re just so far to the left in your ideology that you can’t understand the right’s ideology. Therefore people that don’t believe as you are brainwashed, uniformed, racists, sexists, whatever term you want to use. Anything that doesn’t fit into your progressive plan for the future shall be attacked and vilified. I totally get it, it’s politics.

There’s a looming economic disaster coming for our country. The math just ways there’s a day where medical spending/social spending/war spending will need to be reduced. The question we should be asking ourselves isn’t whom might advance LGBT rights, but who is going to get our national budget in order and how are they going to do it. I don’t think we have 8 more years of kicking the can down the road left.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali][quote=SK in CV]Great way to avoid the question. Attack it.[/quote]

It’s not a question. It’s a hypothetical that attempts attempts to influence you into thinking you’re sexist. It infers that if Hillary was a man her various transgressions would be ignored, or at least tolerated. Maybe in the past that would be the case but she represents the corrupt politics Americans are growing to hate. It’s that hatred of the corruption that is her problem, not because she’s a woman. I think PC crowd would love to have a woman president but not at the expense of another self interested corrupt politician. At this point probably more than half of the country want neither as a choice.[/quote]

No, it was a question. A leading one, but a question nonetheless. Please be specific, what corruption? Do you have evidence to support the charge? (full disclosure, Clinton was never my 1st choice. I’ll be happy to have a woman president, and she will probably come to the office with the most deserving resume in the last century. But I have a lot of problems with both her stated current policies and her policies of the past. Those differences pale in comparison to the problems of a Trump presidency, beginning with his lack of qualifications.)

[scaredyclassic]

Hillary makes money, trump makes money…the system is inherently screwed regardless who wins or was paid off. isn’t the $ a wash?

[no_such_reality]

I honestly think Hillary if is nominated she will lose to Trump.

That’s scary to me.

I simply don’t understand the dogged support of Hillary when another populist candidate that is even more progressive is available and he shows that he mobilizes a significant element of voters that are not going to vote for Hillary.

If Hillary is nominated, I see a close race but one that will mobilize the wacko right element far more than the left. If Hillary hangs on, I suspect the democrats will not gain in the house or senate.

If Bernie is nominated, I suspect they would see much larger gains in the house and senate.

While Hillary is more qualified, if your measure is being versed in the existing sleasy sell out political model and Trump symbolizes vilest parts of capitalism run amok, you don’t claim the moral high ground by supporting a sleaseball over a shitball IMHO.

I agree, in four years we may look back at this as a litmus test, it’ll be a litmus test on who supported the demagogue if he wins, it may also be a litmus test on who dogmatically supported the status quo and refused to see the warts on their candidate too.

A recent poll shows 70% of Hillary supporters say she should continue running even if indicted. AFAICT, that attitude continues to drive people towards Trump.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]I dislike Hillary exactly because of her chumminess with the more destructive Wall Street elements. I’d like her to choose another loud/outspoken woman (Elizabeth Warren) as VP, then be forced to resign “due to personal reasons” a week into her term.[/quote]

What destructive elements of wall street? Please be specific.

Generally speaking, commerce and finance are good for the economy. Yes, there are winners and losers, and we need to help the losers transition to new economy.

Republicans are much worse. They protect Payday lending, seminar scams like Trump University, abusive high interest rate lending… aspects of finance that are bad for the economy.

[zk]

[quote=livinincali]
It’s not brainwashing at all. It’s just a difference of ideology. You’re just so far to the left in your ideology that you can’t understand the right’s ideology.
[/quote]
“So far left?” If you’d read all the posts I’ve made on this blog, and you weren’t biased, you wouldn’t say that. If you add up all my positions (some are left, some are right), and average them, I’m probably slightly left of center. In any case, if a person can think for himself, and if a person doesn’t automatically dismiss any idea he doesn’t agree with, then that person can understand the other side’s ideology, even if he doesn’t agree with it, and even if he’s on the opposite end of the spectrum. So your above argument holds no water.

[quote=livinincali]

Therefore people that don’t believe as you are brainwashed, uniformed, racists, sexists, whatever term you want to use.
[/quote]
No, I don’t consider those who don’t believe as I do as brainwashed. I consider those who clearly can’t think for themselves and who only spout right-wing talking points (or left-wing ones) as brainwashed. I consider those who argue with emotions that have clearly been manipulated as brainwashed. There’s a big difference.

[quote=livinincali]

Anything that doesn’t fit into your progressive plan for the future shall be attacked and vilified. I totally get it, it’s politics.
[/quote]
Another right wing talking point. Show me you’re not brainwashed by coming up with something on your own. My original post is asking questions to try to understand the visceral hate out there, even in the middle and on the left, for Hillary. Who am I attacking and vilifying?

[quote=livinincali]

There’s a looming economic disaster coming for our country. The math just ways there’s a day where medical spending/social spending/war spending will need to be reduced. The question we should be asking ourselves isn’t whom might advance LGBT rights, but who is going to get our national budget in order and how are they going to do it. I don’t think we have 8 more years of kicking the can down the road left.[/quote]

Both important questions, and we can ask them both.

[FlyerInHi]

NSR, interesting comment. But I disagree with you.

I’m going to make a bold prediction. Trump will be become the national Pete Wilson of the Republican Party.

If you watch Univision, you will see how Trump is mobilizing Latino voters. That’s going to affect states like Arizona and Texas.

LGBT issues used to turn off Catholic Latinos and other minorities, but being gay is now considered normal.

My prediction is that Latinos and Asians, the two fastest growing demographic groups will turn out for Democrats. The Republicans will be writing a second obit report after November.

[zk]

[quote=livinincali]

It’s not a question. It’s a hypothetical that attempts attempts to influence you into thinking you’re sexist. It infers that if Hillary was a man her various transgressions would be ignored, or at least tolerated. [/quote]

You mean “implies,” but you’re wrong. I’m not implying that if she were a man her transgressions would be tolerated.

I’m asking if (and maybe implying that) the main reason that so many people hate her so much is that there’s a dissonance between what we want from a woman and what we get from Hillary.

Almost all politicians have committed transgressions that must be tolerated if we’re to vote for them. Hillary is no different in that respect. I’m saying that people hate her, not because of her transgressions, but because of something else, and that that something else is related to her being a woman. Is that different from saying that they would forgive those transgressions if she were a man? Yes. In a subtle but important way. If you ask those people why they hate Hillary, they won’t even mention Benghazi or emails. They’ll talk vaguely about her character or her personality. Maybe they already forgive those transgressions, but they still won’t vote for her because they hate her.

Where Hillary is different is the amount of seething hatred she garners from those who might not hate another politician who’d done the same things and held the same positions. And that’s what I’m trying to understand.

[bearishgurl]

My comments/opinion about Hillary are here:

http://piggington.com/ot_everything_hillary

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=livinincali] You’re just so far to the left in your ideology that you can’t understand the right’s ideology. Therefore people that don’t believe as you are brainwashed, uniformed, racists, sexists, whatever term you want to use. Anything that doesn’t fit into your progressive plan for the future shall be attacked and vilified. I totally get it, it’s politics.
[/quote]
I understand the right’s ideology. It’s a mix of nativist bluster, chest thumping militarism, and everyone-for-himself ideology (millionaires and billionaires who want lower taxes and estate protection).

The part of the Republican Party that is fiscally focused is tiny. So if fiscal policies are of concern, you need to balance that with everything else. Reagan, the “gold standard” of Republicans increased the deficit more than any president before.

As far are family values, we have evengelicals supporting Trump. And before that, they supported Reagan over Carter who is really a morally upstanding person.
I see a lot of contradictions that cannot be reconciled.

[quote=livinincali]
There’s a looming economic disaster coming for our country. The math just ways there’s a day where medical spending/social spending/war spending will need to be reduced. The question we should be asking ourselves isn’t whom might advance LGBT rights, but who is going to get our national budget in order and how are they going to do it. I don’t think we have 8 more years of kicking the can down the road left.[/quote]

And how will Trump reduce the deficit and debt?

(Most economists believe that there’s an optimal level of deficit and debt, and we shouldn’t have a balanced budget or be debt free, but that’s not the point).

As far as the issue of reducing medical spending, the give-aways to insurance companies and the medical complex was all Republican led.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=scaredyclassic]with so many seniors running nowadays, is it not unlikely that someone could croak before nov.? nobody would write a life insurance policy on these fosSils. seems weird how only geriatrics can compete.[/quote]um, scaredy, certainly you must know that “Geriatrics” have a lot more experience, both in career and life, than younger candidates. Who do you suggest run for POTUS? Perhaps 35-year olds (the minimum age to run)?

Could you imagine a millenial US president?? I couldn’t :=0

Don’t knock it and just go with the flow …. and be sure to cast your vote! (No, “Vermin Supreme” isn’t running this cycle … sorry.) You’re headed in the “geriatric direction” along with the rest of us, scaredy.

[Author]

Posts