7 ms·

What's scary is that so many people actually want him to win. I am not sure, exactly, how that is scary. Let's take a look at the reality of our current politi

What's scary is that so many people actually want him to win. I am not sure, exactly, how that is scary. Let's take a look at the reality of our current political situation, fear mongering and demagogic arguments aside. We in the US live in a country with two parties that have, for all intents and purposes, chosen their two favorites for leaders. When we go to the polls in November we will either vote for Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump. You have essentially three choices at this very moment: 1) Pick Mrs. Clinton because you believe in her principles and values more than Mr. Trumps. 2) Pick Mr. Trump because you believe in his principles and values more than Mrs. Clintons. 3) Don't vote for either Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump and get whatever the rest of the population picks. So when people say it is "scary that so many people actually want him to win", remember it is not all that scary. They just believe in his principles and values more than they believe in Mrs. Clintons. They have reason. You might think their reasons are ridiculous, stupid, or absurd. But there are only two candidates and you can only side with one. Let's not make this any bigger than it actually is.

mikeash 10y ago
It's not the potential win in November that's scary, it's the fact that Trump won (is guaranteed to win?) the nomination. If God descended from heaven and snapped his fingers and declared, "This November, you shall decide between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton," then I wouldn't find it particularly surprising or worrying that ~50% of the electorate would support Trump. But the fact that people chose him out of a wide field during the primaries is a totally different story. Yes, none of the other choices were particularly compelling, but neither were they the inconceivable choice represented by Clinton. It's not that they believe in him more than Clinton, it's that they believe in him more than Rubio and Cruz and Christie and Jeb Bush. A big chunk of voters basically just said "fuck it" to the whole process and gave up on even the pretense of sane politicians. Who are they going to choose for Congress? Who are they going to nominate for president the next time around? Maybe they'll realize this was a mistake and get back to some form of sanity, but I'm not optimistic.
- trcollinson 10y ago
  So I guess the real question is, were the other candidates actually compelling? And more compelling? If so, how were they compelling? I think it's a poor argument to say a big chunk of voters basically said "fuck it" to the whole process. What they did say was, well the other candidates are offering us anything compelling to vote for them with; Mr. Trump is. Now, again, maybe the compelling arguments Mr. Trump is giving are totally baseless, racist, ridiculous, and absurd. But, they worked for a majority of voters so far. He's playing politics, and he's winning. He reminds me of about every other politician on either side of the aisle, ever.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    The others weren't compelling, but at least most of them weren't completely nuts. Sure, the Republican primary electorate found Trump compelling, and that's why they won. And that's what scares me. I don't think they necessarily should have found any of the others compelling (what an awful field of candidates, I mean, seriously, what happened there?) but that's beside the point.
    - davidw 10y ago
      I'm a bit worried about what will happen if he loses and does not accept it.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        If by "loses" you mean "loses the general election", that could be a bit problematic. In 2000, Bush mainly kept his mouth shut. But Gore's campaign manager made a series of public statements along the lines of "Gore has clearly won, and if this goes to Bush it's a travesty of the election." That didn't help heal or unite the country after the election; arguably, the division has remained ever since. Trump could do the same thing, but do it much more loudly, bombastically, and in a more attention-grabbing way. The only prevention would be for him to lose so strongly that nobody listens, and everyone writes it off as the whining of a bitter self-deluded loser.
splawn 10y ago
Imo, its scary because an overt racist is a viable candidate.
- clevernickname 10y ago
  "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor." -- Bernie Sanders
  - throwanem 10y ago
    A viable candidate.
  - splawn 10y ago
    Correct me if I am wrong, but your premise here looks like a meaningless semantic argument while ignoring why racism is bad to begin with.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      ...he said, because the claim that it's not possible to be racist against white people had actually won over anybody ever.
      - splawn 10y ago
        So rather than pointing out how Im wrong (as I even requested), you construct a strawman argument? I didn't claim that... its fine if you disagree with me, but be honest in your discussion. Edit: and since you are not the person that posted the sanders quote.. im not sure how you know what they think their premise is.
        throwanem 10y ago
        Is that not where you're coming from? Because it sure sounds like that's where you're coming from.
graycat 10y ago
IMHO, we are better off than that. For comparison, let's look at the record: Hoover? Was totally oblivious to the The Great Depression. Didn't see the crash coming; didn't know what to do to fix it. FDR? Was too slow getting us out of The Great Depression. We came out in 90 days flat once people started shooting at us. The damage to the US from The Great Depression was horrible with much of it still with us. He did get us mobilized to win WWII and won it. Ike? Won WWII in Europe (before he was President). As President, won the war in Korea, pushed back against the Soviets in Berlin, kept the Cold War cold, kept up our military, e.g., nukes, B-52s, ICBMs, SSBNs, and jet airplanes, kept us out of Viet Nam. Did the right things in the Little Rock racism crisis. Ike was slow to keep the economy going. Did respond to Sputnik. JKF? Did get the economy going again. Started the Apollo program moon shot. Didn't keep us out of Viet Nam. In the end, did the right things in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but looked to the Soviets like a wimp who could be taken advantage of and, thus, partly stimulated that crisis. LBJ? Went wacko over Viet Nam, killed a lot of people, wasted a lot of money, inflated the US economy. Nixon? Also wacko over Viet Nam and continued to inflate the US economy. Was a crook. Was driven out of office in disgrace. Ford? Got out of Viet Nam only after Congress flatly cut off the money. Carter? Poor leader. Didn't take US energy seriously. Got pushed around by the Iranians. His helicopter effort at Iran flopped. Reagan? Was a good leader, but had a lot of just silly ideas about what the US should do. Spent a lot of money -- fiscal stimulus -- that did help get the economy going again. Did scare the Soviets over Star Wars and, thus, may have helped the Soviets to give up. Left office mentally handicapped. Bush 41? Put General Schwarzkopf in charge in Gulf War I who -- in an 8 week air campaign and a 100 hour ground campaign -- totally blew away Saddam's 7 million man army while having fewer US casualties from enemy action than from recreational sports activities. Brilliant. Otherwise neglected the economy. ... My view is that (1) the US now has some very serious problems, (2) Trump has a lot of determination and a lot of okay to good general approaches for solutions, (3) Trump is good enough as a leader to be able to build consensus for getting things done, (4) he is fully sincere, (5) we are very lucky he is doing what he is, and (6) he has a good shot at being the best president we've had back at least to Hoover where my knowledge of US history is too weak to comment. Let's DO get out all the important information, but let's NOT be so tough minded that we miss a great opportunity.
- 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago

It's not the potential win in November that's scary, it's the fact that Trump won (is guaranteed to win?) the nomination. If God descended from heaven and snapped his fingers and declared, "This November, you shall decide between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton," then I wouldn't find it particularly surprising or worrying that ~50% of the electorate would support Trump. But the fact that people chose him out of a wide field during the primaries is a totally different story. Yes, none of the other choices were particularly compelling, but neither were they the inconceivable choice represented by Clinton. It's not that they believe in him more than Clinton, it's that they believe in him more than Rubio and Cruz and Christie and Jeb Bush. A big chunk of voters basically just said "fuck it" to the whole process and gave up on even the pretense of sane politicians. Who are they going to choose for Congress? Who are they going to nominate for president the next time around? Maybe they'll realize this was a mistake and get back to some form of sanity, but I'm not optimistic.

trcollinson 10y ago
So I guess the real question is, were the other candidates actually compelling? And more compelling? If so, how were they compelling? I think it's a poor argument to say a big chunk of voters basically said "fuck it" to the whole process. What they did say was, well the other candidates are offering us anything compelling to vote for them with; Mr. Trump is. Now, again, maybe the compelling arguments Mr. Trump is giving are totally baseless, racist, ridiculous, and absurd. But, they worked for a majority of voters so far. He's playing politics, and he's winning. He reminds me of about every other politician on either side of the aisle, ever.
- mikeash 10y ago
  The others weren't compelling, but at least most of them weren't completely nuts. Sure, the Republican primary electorate found Trump compelling, and that's why they won. And that's what scares me. I don't think they necessarily should have found any of the others compelling (what an awful field of candidates, I mean, seriously, what happened there?) but that's beside the point.
  - davidw 10y ago
    I'm a bit worried about what will happen if he loses and does not accept it.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      If by "loses" you mean "loses the general election", that could be a bit problematic. In 2000, Bush mainly kept his mouth shut. But Gore's campaign manager made a series of public statements along the lines of "Gore has clearly won, and if this goes to Bush it's a travesty of the election." That didn't help heal or unite the country after the election; arguably, the division has remained ever since. Trump could do the same thing, but do it much more loudly, bombastically, and in a more attention-grabbing way. The only prevention would be for him to lose so strongly that nobody listens, and everyone writes it off as the whining of a bitter self-deluded loser.

splawn 10y ago

Imo, its scary because an overt racist is a viable candidate.

clevernickname 10y ago
"When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor." -- Bernie Sanders
- throwanem 10y ago
  A viable candidate.
- splawn 10y ago
  Correct me if I am wrong, but your premise here looks like a meaningless semantic argument while ignoring why racism is bad to begin with.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    ...he said, because the claim that it's not possible to be racist against white people had actually won over anybody ever.
    - splawn 10y ago
      So rather than pointing out how Im wrong (as I even requested), you construct a strawman argument? I didn't claim that... its fine if you disagree with me, but be honest in your discussion. Edit: and since you are not the person that posted the sanders quote.. im not sure how you know what they think their premise is.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        Is that not where you're coming from? Because it sure sounds like that's where you're coming from.

graycat 10y ago

IMHO, we are better off than that. For comparison, let's look at the record: Hoover? Was totally oblivious to the The Great Depression. Didn't see the crash coming; didn't know what to do to fix it. FDR? Was too slow getting us out of The Great Depression. We came out in 90 days flat once people started shooting at us. The damage to the US from The Great Depression was horrible with much of it still with us. He did get us mobilized to win WWII and won it. Ike? Won WWII in Europe (before he was President). As President, won the war in Korea, pushed back against the Soviets in Berlin, kept the Cold War cold, kept up our military, e.g., nukes, B-52s, ICBMs, SSBNs, and jet airplanes, kept us out of Viet Nam. Did the right things in the Little Rock racism crisis. Ike was slow to keep the economy going. Did respond to Sputnik. JKF? Did get the economy going again. Started the Apollo program moon shot. Didn't keep us out of Viet Nam. In the end, did the right things in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but looked to the Soviets like a wimp who could be taken advantage of and, thus, partly stimulated that crisis. LBJ? Went wacko over Viet Nam, killed a lot of people, wasted a lot of money, inflated the US economy. Nixon? Also wacko over Viet Nam and continued to inflate the US economy. Was a crook. Was driven out of office in disgrace. Ford? Got out of Viet Nam only after Congress flatly cut off the money. Carter? Poor leader. Didn't take US energy seriously. Got pushed around by the Iranians. His helicopter effort at Iran flopped. Reagan? Was a good leader, but had a lot of just silly ideas about what the US should do. Spent a lot of money -- fiscal stimulus -- that did help get the economy going again. Did scare the Soviets over Star Wars and, thus, may have helped the Soviets to give up. Left office mentally handicapped. Bush 41? Put General Schwarzkopf in charge in Gulf War I who -- in an 8 week air campaign and a 100 hour ground campaign -- totally blew away Saddam's 7 million man army while having fewer US casualties from enemy action than from recreational sports activities. Brilliant. Otherwise neglected the economy. ... My view is that (1) the US now has some very serious problems, (2) Trump has a lot of determination and a lot of okay to good general approaches for solutions, (3) Trump is good enough as a leader to be able to build consensus for getting things done, (4) he is fully sincere, (5) we are very lucky he is doing what he is, and (6) he has a good shot at being the best president we've had back at least to Hoover where my knowledge of US history is too weak to comment. Let's DO get out all the important information, but let's NOT be so tough minded that we miss a great opportunity.

10y ago