Trump or Hillary?

[OraLabora]

It remains to be seen how far this or future administrations can push the acceptance of same sex “marriage” to the point that marriage is destroyed altogether, at least as a civil institution. In the US the number one cause of poverty is the choice to disrespect marriage.

I think this is true. My young nephew did som contract work overhauling a mine in the BC interior over Christmas. He made big bucks but said it was brutal work. Many men on the job were in their 50s. Tough work at that age. When he asked them about that, they said they had ex-wives to pay for, some up to three ex-wives. No-fault divorce has lead to a social train wreck of poverty, fatherless children lacking a male role model, etc.

I think the undoing of marriage was largely completed a long time ago. I’m not so sure that people leading what was often a promiscuous lifestyle now seeking some measure of marriage-like stability is anywhere near as bad as no-fault divorce has been. While I agree it isn’t “marriage” in either the sacramental or natural sense, I can’t see the desire for stability and sexual exclusivity as an entirely bad thing, at least from a public health poin of view. It may be a lesser evil. I have to say even though I lobbied my government strongly against SSM, I’ve long since stopped losing sleep over it.

Back to the poll question, I can just say I’m glad I’m Canadian and not in the US, and don’t have to face your lose-lose choices. If I were in the US though, there’s no way I could vote for most of the Republican candidates except perhaps for Bush.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Back to the poll question, I can just say I’m glad I’m Canadian and not in the US, and don’t have to face your lose-lose choices. If I were in the US though, there’s no way I could vote for most of the Republican candidates except perhaps for Bush.

Trudeau isn’t a “lose” situation?

I know nothing about Canadian politics and it would probably take me longer than I care to spend the time to learn.

But to me at least, the American presidential election this time isn’t a matter of what one is for as it is one of what one is against. I, for one, despise everything Hillary Clinton stands for; the devotion to abortion, the callousness at the killing of Quaddhaffi;(sure he was a monster, but did she have to laugh?) the deceptiveness when the Libya adventure went south, the staggering level of corruption. I would unhesitatingly vote for a name taken at random from the phone book instead of her.

So, whoever the Repub candidate ends up being the one will get my vote.

And so, to me the Republican field doesn’t look anywhere near as bad as it apparently does to you.

But I do agree with the rest of your post.

 

[OraLabora]

Trudeau isn’t a “lose” situation?

I know nothing about Canadian politics and it would probably take me longer than I care to spend the time to learn.

But to me at least, the American presidential election this time isn’t a matter of what one is for as it is one of what one is against. I, for one, despise everything Hillary Clinton stands for; the devotion to abortion, the callousness at the killing of Quaddhaffi;(sure he was a monster, but did she have to laugh?) the deceptiveness when the Libya adventure went south, the staggering level of corruption. I would unhesitatingly vote for a name taken at random from the phone book instead of her.

So, whoever the Repub candidate ends up being the one will get my vote.

And so, to me the Republican field doesn’t look anywhere near as bad as it apparently does to you.

But I do agree with the rest of your post.

Keep in mind Canada is a parliamentary democracy. In theory at least, we vote as much for a local member of parliament as we do for a PM. On that basis, the Liberal in my riding was far and away the best candidate, so I could vote for him with a clear conscience.

In Canada, the SSM and abortion trains left the station years ago; even the Conservatives wouldn’t dare touch them. That said, we needed a change. The Conservatives weren’t conservative in the true sense. They were populists fond of using wedge issues to weave together a coalition of angry white men angry at various issues. Their tax changes were often disastrous, for example reducing consumption instead of income taxes flew in the face of sound advice. It simply allowed provinces to steal back the decrease by increasing provincial sales tax while putting the Feds back into deficit, with near zero net gain for the taxpayer.

I don’t think Trudeau will be as bad as many think. If he is, we’ll have the opportunity to throw him out in 4 years.

 

[Crossbones]

So whos plan do you think is most rational? I haven’t heard any good plans or seen any from either side. You?

I like some of what Senator Sanders has to say. I like Senator Paul, too. I am concerned about the rhetoric from Mr. Trump lately, but I think it’s more for show than actual policy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am concerned about the rhetoric

I think we are in agreement. Yeah the rhetoric is concerning. To me Trump and Hillary are outright concerning, both likely the same personality type. To be a choice I would probably reluctantly go with Trump. Both of their behavior concerns me, its not even the flip flopping of both or amending points by rolling back rhetoric. Its the ego and attitude and the behavior doesn’t represent all of us, but screams of a underlying intentional divide that some perhaps think can’t be addressed and corrected others probably promote. I don’t believe any of that. So I can’t see either in the final analysis.

 

[Crossbones]

I think we are in agreement. Yeah the rhetoric is concerning. To me Trump and Hillary are outright concerning, both likely the same personality type. To be a choice I would probably reluctantly go with Trump. Both of their behavior concerns me, its not even the flip flopping of both or amending points by rolling back rhetoric. Its the ego and attitude and the behavior doesn’t represent all of us, but screams of a underlying intentional divide that some perhaps think can’t be addressed and corrected others probably promote. I don’t believe any of that. So I can’t see either in the final analysis.

I’d go with Mr. Trump. Yes, the ego is large, but he was against the Iraq War and against abortion. Secretary Clinton was for the Iraq War and for abortion. My take is that the best case scenario for a Clinton presidency is something similar to the original President Clinton, no push in legislative agenda in matters I care about and triangulating to stay in power. Of course, the original was blessed with a bubble economy.

 

[pnewton]

If we are going to narrow this down to just a choice between two people based on polls, consider this one.

60% of Americans Want a Third Party Candidate for 2016

washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/60-of-americans-want-a-third-party-candidate-for-2016.html

If the two parties continue with polarization of America, then we may well see in this generation a party shift. This sort of change occurs throughout history. We are not so special that we are locked in to these two parties for the rest of American history.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Something to think about also.

alibertarianfuture.com/big-government/healthcare-obamacare/the-difference-between-bernie-sanders-and-rand-paul/

 

[Peter_J]

If we are going to narrow this down to just a choice between two people based on polls
…

Based on sensationalism really. Trump is still a ways from getting the majority of Republicans to support him; but this thread wouldn’t have gotten hundreds of replies if it weren’t focused on a sensational scenario like a Trump-Clinton matchup.

 

[Crossbones]

Something to think about also.

alibertarianfuture.com/big-government/healthcare-obamacare/the-difference-between-bernie-sanders-and-rand-paul/

Not really buying it.

 

[powerofk]

If we are going to narrow this down to just a choice between two people based on polls, consider this one.

60% of Americans Want a Third Party Candidate for 2016

washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/60-of-americans-want-a-third-party-candidate-for-2016.html

If the two parties continue with polarization of America, then we may well see in this generation a party shift. This sort of change occurs throughout history. We are not so special that we are locked in to these two parties for the rest of American history.

The biggest problem is that no one can agree on what they want from the 3rd party. Independents compose of a huge swath of views. Some independents are more “Conservative” than Republicans, and think that the GOP isn’t “Conservative” enough for them. Some independents are more “Progressive” than Democrats, and think that the Democrats aren’t “Progressive” enough. Other independents agree with the GOP on social issues, but with the Dems on economic issues - or agree with the Dems on social issues, but with the GOP on economic issues (for the sake of argument here, I’m considering immigration to be an economic issue). Add this to the natural extreme advantages that the Democratic and Republican parties have regarding ballot access and media attention, etc., there’s a reason why no 3rd party has been able to gain consistent traction since 1856/1860 (the GOP started as a 3rd party in 1856 and gained power in 1860, primarily due to a Dem party split in 3 ways).

 

[pnewton]

The biggest problem is that no one can agree on what they want from the 3rd party.

This should be an interesting time. The Green Party and the Libertarian Party have both been with us for a while, though neither can gain a lot of traction yet. Then we have the Constitutional Party, which seems to be gaining ground, but remains small. Both parties are in a quandary. If they pick a more moderate candidate to garner independent support, they can lose votes from the more extreme elements of their own party to an independent.

 

[Thom18]

I REALLY hope it doesn’t come down to this. I don’t hate a lot of people, but Hillary…

As for Trump, he has a history of doing favors for her, so I really don’t trust him, either. Politics is a dirty game.

I’m really hoping someone like Ted Cruz or Ben Carson gets the nomination, but we ALL know the GOP wants Jeb.

 

[mary_bobo]

I like some of what Senator Sanders has to say. I like Senator Paul, too. I am concerned about the rhetoric from Mr. Trump lately, but I think it’s more for show than actual policy.

Interesting. Those two are polar opposites. Perhaps you mean you think they are each phrasing their positions well. But then, you will be voting for whoever the Dems nominate, no?

 

[mary_bobo]

I’d go with Mr. Trump. Yes, the ego is large, but he was against the Iraq War and against abortion. Secretary Clinton was for the Iraq War and for abortion. My take is that the best case scenario for a Clinton presidency is something similar to the original President Clinton, no push in legislative agenda in matters I care about and triangulating to stay in power. Of course, the original was blessed with a bubble economy.

Hillary doesn’t have the personality of her husband. She seems cold and calculating.

 

[Peter_J]

we ALL know the GOP wants Jeb.

Well obviously. Heck, I think the latest poll showed him at 55%.

Edit: Sorry, I guess that should have been 5%. (But don’t let that get in the way of your narrative. )

 

[Thom18]

Well obviously. Heck, I think the latest poll showed him at 55%.

Edit: Sorry, I guess that should have been 5%. (But don’t let that get in the way of your narrative. )

I’m talking not so much about the voters, but the RNC or whoever does the nominating. THEY want Jeb. The people who will vote? Not so much.

 

[Crossbones]

Interesting. Those two are polar opposites. Perhaps you mean you think they are each phrasing their positions well. But then, you will be voting for whoever the Dems nominate, no?

I think both Senators Sanders and Paul would have similar foreign policies avoiding entanglements that would lead to the unintended consequences of President GW Bush’s administration. Domestically, they have different agendas, but I think both have core values that they would hold true to. Like most politicians, I agree with some of their agenda and disagree with some, but I do think have core values is a plus as most politicians do not (IMHO).

No, I base who I vote for on the candidates and their views and am not a strict party line voter. It may seem like that I am a Democrat because I realize some Republican positions are horrible and say so.

 

[Darryl1958]

Hillary doesn’t have the personality of her husband. She seems cold and calculating.

While this is certainly true on the level of public persona, people who actually know the couple personally find that it is Bill that is the more aloof of the two.

 

[mary_bobo]

I REALLY hope it doesn’t come down to this. I don’t hate a lot of people, but Hillary…

As for Trump, he has a history of doing favors for her, so I really don’t trust him, either. Politics is a dirty game.

I’m really hoping someone like Ted Cruz or Ben Carson gets the nomination, but we ALL know the GOP wants Jeb.

I disagree. The GOP, as does the DNC, wants a winner. It is pretty obvious, at this point at least, that is not Jeb. While I do not agree with him on some things I do know that he was a good governor. Don’t know how that would translate to national politics.