4 ms·

So we're supposed to tolerate corruption simply to avoid Trump? Trump offers us a lesson that if we don't take democracy (and the underlying components/princip

So we're supposed to tolerate corruption simply to avoid Trump? Trump offers us a lesson that if we don't take democracy (and the underlying components/principles) seriously, it will decay.

seizethecheese 10y ago
Obligatory Gary Johnson reference...
- zeroer 10y ago
  I'm sorry, but you need to spell out clearly what you're saying for some of us.
sickbeard 10y ago
just like Bush offered you a lesson?
- grandalf 10y ago
  Sadly Bush didn't offer a lesson. Obama took office and continued and expanded the Bush Doctrine on foreign policy, greatly increasing extrajudicial actions and drone stuff.
slg 10y ago
> Trump offers us a lesson... I hate to be the check your privileged type, but I can't imagine hearing that from any type of minority person. Sure, if you are an upper middle class white guy, like most of us here, the idea of sending a lesson might be attractive. But that lesson isn't worth sacrifices to the rights of women, LGBT people, Muslims, African Americans, and everyone else that would be hurt be a Trump presidency.
- grandalf 10y ago
  If a Trump presidency resulted in any changes to the rights of any of the groups you mention, we'd also have congress to blame. The president does not have the power to make laws. We've seen an ostensibly moderate president (Obama) uphold and extend the Bush Doctrine on foreign policy, killing, mutilating, and devastating all sorts of innocent people throughout the middle east. The lesson we'd learn from a Trump presidence is that we need to be more picky about the sort of people we vote into office. The first step in this is not holding our nose and voting for the major party candidate who offends us slightly less. This election, we get to choose between a democrat who is actually a moderate conservative (and could easily run the same platform as a republican) and a populist Republican, who has borrowed Democratic Party rhetoric on rust belt issues and combined it with some elements of paleo-conservatism. They are both hybrids that defy the party conventions.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    What worries me most about a Trump presidency is not local (US) policy, as you rightly point out that he needs legislative support that he doesn't have to make changes (although he can retard progress through veto power, depending on your definition of progress and his inclination), but the absolute murder he will do to the US reputation and standing in the international community (already a complex topic, and I imagine fairly mixed in most circles).
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > What worries me most about a Trump presidency is not local (US) policy, as you rightly point out that he needs legislative support that he doesn't have If a sufficient electoral base exists to elect Trump, a sufficient electoral base exists to get him sufficient legislative support (sooner than new people are elected, perhaps, simply by raising the prospect of electoral danger to present incumbents) to implement his policies.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        That assumes everyone actually knows what his objectives are before electing him, or that those objectives stay the same after election. Given how often his views have changed so far, I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make. Edit: Also, to be clear, if he does have legislative support because enough people support him to elect representatives with similar agendas, that's not really something for me to be worried about, as that would be no different than any other candidate. If it's the will of the people, so be it (as much as I dislike it).
Jtsummers 10y ago
I would really prefer to avoid a 4-year object lesson of that sort. Not saying Hillary will be a good president, but she won't be as bad as him. At least it buys us 4 more years of (roughly) status quo and maybe the disintegration of the Republican party. Which, IMO, would be an objective good thing (same with the Democratic party). Restructured, in 4-8 years with 2-3 viable future parties forming we may have some that exhibit saner political stances.
- mk1202 10y ago
  You're naive. There are rumours that Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to run, an attempt to scare people to vote for Hillary. If Hillary wins, she'll be president for 8 years. The DNC won't kick her out, and she's too well connected and smart to face accountability for her actions. The Clintons are above the law. If Trump wins, he'll do such a bad job as president that the Dems could win in 2020 with a better candidate. It's either 8 years of Clinton or 4 years of Trump: your choice.

So we're supposed to tolerate corruption simply to avoid Trump? Trump offers us a lesson that if we don't take democracy (and the underlying components/principles) seriously, it will decay.

seizethecheese 10y ago

Obligatory Gary Johnson reference...

zeroer 10y ago
I'm sorry, but you need to spell out clearly what you're saying for some of us.

sickbeard 10y ago

just like Bush offered you a lesson?

grandalf 10y ago
Sadly Bush didn't offer a lesson. Obama took office and continued and expanded the Bush Doctrine on foreign policy, greatly increasing extrajudicial actions and drone stuff.

slg 10y ago

> Trump offers us a lesson... I hate to be the check your privileged type, but I can't imagine hearing that from any type of minority person. Sure, if you are an upper middle class white guy, like most of us here, the idea of sending a lesson might be attractive. But that lesson isn't worth sacrifices to the rights of women, LGBT people, Muslims, African Americans, and everyone else that would be hurt be a Trump presidency.

grandalf 10y ago
If a Trump presidency resulted in any changes to the rights of any of the groups you mention, we'd also have congress to blame. The president does not have the power to make laws. We've seen an ostensibly moderate president (Obama) uphold and extend the Bush Doctrine on foreign policy, killing, mutilating, and devastating all sorts of innocent people throughout the middle east. The lesson we'd learn from a Trump presidence is that we need to be more picky about the sort of people we vote into office. The first step in this is not holding our nose and voting for the major party candidate who offends us slightly less. This election, we get to choose between a democrat who is actually a moderate conservative (and could easily run the same platform as a republican) and a populist Republican, who has borrowed Democratic Party rhetoric on rust belt issues and combined it with some elements of paleo-conservatism. They are both hybrids that defy the party conventions.
- kbenson 10y ago
  What worries me most about a Trump presidency is not local (US) policy, as you rightly point out that he needs legislative support that he doesn't have to make changes (although he can retard progress through veto power, depending on your definition of progress and his inclination), but the absolute murder he will do to the US reputation and standing in the international community (already a complex topic, and I imagine fairly mixed in most circles).
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > What worries me most about a Trump presidency is not local (US) policy, as you rightly point out that he needs legislative support that he doesn't have If a sufficient electoral base exists to elect Trump, a sufficient electoral base exists to get him sufficient legislative support (sooner than new people are elected, perhaps, simply by raising the prospect of electoral danger to present incumbents) to implement his policies.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      That assumes everyone actually knows what his objectives are before electing him, or that those objectives stay the same after election. Given how often his views have changed so far, I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make. Edit: Also, to be clear, if he does have legislative support because enough people support him to elect representatives with similar agendas, that's not really something for me to be worried about, as that would be no different than any other candidate. If it's the will of the people, so be it (as much as I dislike it).

Jtsummers 10y ago

I would really prefer to avoid a 4-year object lesson of that sort. Not saying Hillary will be a good president, but she won't be as bad as him. At least it buys us 4 more years of (roughly) status quo and maybe the disintegration of the Republican party. Which, IMO, would be an objective good thing (same with the Democratic party). Restructured, in 4-8 years with 2-3 viable future parties forming we may have some that exhibit saner political stances.

mk1202 10y ago
You're naive. There are rumours that Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to run, an attempt to scare people to vote for Hillary. If Hillary wins, she'll be president for 8 years. The DNC won't kick her out, and she's too well connected and smart to face accountability for her actions. The Clintons are above the law. If Trump wins, he'll do such a bad job as president that the Dems could win in 2020 with a better candidate. It's either 8 years of Clinton or 4 years of Trump: your choice.