Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Recommended Posts

Let's not get caught up in all the non-essential questions regarding which candidate is more evil. Have we honestly not settled on the fact that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are ridiculous clowns? Why should we take seriously anything they say before the election?

There is only one question to answer: Which clown do we want selecting up to four Supreme Court Justices in the next several years?

It's actually the only question that really matters in this election. Forget what the candidates are saying today or promising for tomorrow. It's all trivial minutia in comparison to the unprecedented elephant in the room, which we strangely don't hear much about anymore: the fact that our next president will radically influence the direction of the judicial branch of our government.

In broad terms, Trump is a big businessman trying to survive in an anti-big business political climate. He merely dabbles in intellectual matters, probably because he's not that bright and has a poor attention span. He entered politics without much initial support from his own party, and clawed his way to the top. He will probably try to run the country like a business and thus do what he thinks is pro-American. I don't see him shoving Christianity, Environmentalism, or any other devastating philosophy down our throats. Or picking judges based on such ideas.

On the other hand, we have Clinton, a lawyer who stood beside her cheating husband before using him to start her own scandal-ridden political career. She has adopted nearly every liberal movement that gains any sort of traction, and she continues to push for more socialization of health care and education. If elected, I'm positive that she will nominate liberal judges and absolutely ruin the Supreme Court for a generation.

Which is why I say: Vote Trump!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I was going to vote for Trump to keep Hillary out but that was months ago.  I can't do that now.  I know now what Nicky has known all along.  He's a disaster in the making if he's elected.  Vote for J

I'm not "for Trump" at all but his opponent should be in prison for her crimes. Instead she will be elected President. lol Wouldn't the Founding Fathers be proud if they were alive to see today's clus

Let's not get caught up in all the non-essential questions regarding which candidate is more evil. Have we honestly not settled on the fact that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are ridiculous cl

Posted Images

5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

He merely dabbles in intellectual matters, probably because he's not that bright and has a poor attention span.

So he's a moron. This is as heinous as anything Hillary does, and it's evidently worse than I thought as time goes on. Ideas and reason matter, but not to Trump. Trump will start a war probably because he's too stupid to do -anything- right except MAYBE real estate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Let's not get caught up in all the non-essential questions regarding which candidate is more evil. Have we honestly not settled on the fact that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are ridiculous clowns? Why should we take seriously anything they say before the election?

Would you mind clarifying a couple of things, please?

1. How long before the election did you stop paying attention to what Trump is saying?

Was it before he graded Vladimir Putin with an A for strength and leadership? Or was it back when he promised to forcibly deport 12 million people who live in the US? Or was it back when he announced that he will restore American manufacturing by dissolving the global trade agreements that moved all the jobs abroad? Was it when he said that eminent domain is a very useful tool for job creation? Was it when he promised to put women who have abortions in prison? Or was it a few days after that, when he said he has the exact opposite view on abortion?

Was it back when he proposed a 14% tax on all wealth in the United States? Or a 20% tax on all imported goods? Or was it all the way back when he joined the birther movement?

Was it when he said he wants no limits on gun purchases, because they save lives and are tools for self defense? Or was it a few years before, when he came out in favor of the "assault weapons" ban, sweeping background checks and long waiting periods for ALL gun purchases?

Was it last year, when he was against minimum wage raises, or was it this year, when he's for them?

Was it when he promised to get rid of the individual mandate in healthcare? Or was it when he declared, and this is an exact quote, that "WE MUST HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE"? Or was it when he said we must reduce vaccinations to prevent autism? Surely you at least caught this last one.

 

2. If you've NEVER paid attention to what he has to say, how exactly did you divine that he "will do what he thinks is pro-American"? How exactly are you able to magically know that someone you don't listen to is pro-American?

5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I don't see him shoving Christianity, Environmentalism, or any other devastating philosophy down our throats. Or picking judges based on such ideas.

Trump listed a number of potential SCOTUS picks, a couple of months ago. There wasn't a single person on there who has behaved differently from previous Republican nominees. Every single one of them has a long track record of shoving their religious and political beliefs down people's throats.

But, of course, that list could just as easily be a lie. He could just as easily be planning to pick people who will shove progressive ideas down our throats, or worse: totalitarian ideas. He has in the past declared himself in favor of both.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nicky said:

How long before the election did you stop paying attention to what Trump is saying?

...how exactly did you divine that he "will do what he thinks is pro-American"?

I haven't stopped listening to what Trump says. But I no longer take his campaign talk seriously. Same for Clinton.

I "divined" Trump's pro-American attitude by listening to him, beginning with his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again." This does not mean that I believe his specific ideas would actually be good for the nation. But at least his political focus is in the general vicinity of national self-interest. Whereas Hillary's "I'm With Her" mantra is about as far away as you can get from a pro-American viewpoint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

I haven't stopped listening to what Trump says. But I no longer take his campaign talk seriously. Same for Clinton.

I "divined" Trump's pro-American attitude by listening to him, beginning with his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again." This does not mean that I believe his specific ideas would actually be good for the nation. But at least his political focus is in the general vicinity of national self-interest. Whereas Hillary's "I'm With Her" mantra is about as far away as you can get from a pro-American viewpoint.

Right. Let's not get caught up in the non-essential question of which candidate is more evil. Let's just go by who has a better campaign slogan.

Even that doesn't help your cause. A quick google search tells me that Clinton's slogans are "Hillary for America" and "Stronger together". I don't know why she needs two, but neither  strikes me as any more anti-American than "Make America Great Again".
 

Quote

I haven't stopped listening to what Trump says. But I no longer take his campaign talk seriously.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. If you're listening to someone, and drawing conclusions about him based on what you're hearing, how are you not taking what he's saying seriously?

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if Nicky is trying to defend Clinton which is just as horrible as defending Trump or not, but the country has officially dipped into insanity the moment either of these candidates could be elected. So the only two people that can be elected to the highest office is a socialist or an idiot with no principles at all? 

I mostly quit following politics when Obama was elected because I had thought such an evil man could never be elected in this nation. I was wrong, and unbelievably it actually happened twice. 

I don't think either of these people are evil enough to start the dictatorship we are heading towards, but the next guy in four or eight years who rises in opposition to either one will be. The country is ready for it now. Our choice of Presidential candidates is ample proof of that. 

The Republic is dead, and it's dead because these two candidates represent the "values" of the vast majority of the population of this country now.

Edited by EC
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EC said:

I mostly quit following politics when Obama was elected ... ...

In your evaluation, would Hillary be worse than Obama. For instance, is she significantly more socialist that Obama? Some people say she's similarly socialist, but also corrupt and helps her Wall Street buddies which makes her a more fascist-style/GOP style statist. The issue I have with the second narrative is that corruption of that kind undercuts ideology. So, if it is true it makes her less ideological and more of an everyday politician.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, EC said:

I don't know if Nicky is trying to defend Clinton which is just as horrible as defending Trump

Is it horrible? Why? Why is it horrible to defend anyone, if you happen to disagree with the charge being brought? Would it be horrible to defend Trump, for instance (or Hitler, while we're at it), if the accusation someone made was that he's a child molester?

 I'm happy to defend Clinton against charges that have no real merit (like "she's a murderer", or "she's too sick to be President", or that she's "bought and paid for by Wall Street and the Saudis", or part of other conspiracies members of this board and a certain blogger have alluded to), but I wouldn't defend her against charges there is evidence for, like, "she's less scrupulous than even most of her peers", or that "she was an incompetent and unprincipled Sec. of State", or "her proposed policies will hurt the country".

Similarly, I would "defend" Trump if someone said he was a child molester, but I wouldn't defend him if someone said he has the traits of past fascist despots, or that his rise to prominence has a lot in common with the rise of those despots. I also wouldn't defend him against the charge that, even if he couldn't or wouldn't be able to break out of the constraint of the office of the President, just the policy proposals he made, even if they are only partially implemented, are far more destructive than Hillary's entire platform, implemented down to every last detail.

 

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view, the protest vote is to vote Trump, because, 1., he'll be the runner up if he loses (such to waste one's vote, less ; ideologically: 'oh look, 80% of the electoral college went Clinton, and 20% went for "capitalism" [where scare quotes become ' ']), 2, the ObamaCare repeal & replace (the latter, replace, being better than what it once was, now improving on even the previous previous regime [political remedy, as opposed to too-quickly jurisprudentially striking down ObamaCare, as better than, strike-down, then, the court flips, and the precedent changes _the other way_ [towards evil]), 3. global boring 4. SCOTUS (which Cruz struck a deal over for his support [the short list]) 5. Israel.

One has to suck it up when voting this way but, IMO, the fleeting self-defense built into one's vote, over the culture. I'm Aussie, I'm not feeling ObamaCare, I can't vote. But my guess is its cancer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2016 at 2:10 AM, Nicky said:

 

 

On 9/30/2016 at 2:10 AM, Nicky said:

If you're listening to someone, and drawing conclusions about him based on what you're hearing, how are you not taking what he's saying seriously?

Because the conclusion I drew was that I should not take their words seriously. What is confusing about that? Do you take every liar and fool that you know seriously? Why make an exception for Donald and Hillary? Because one of them will be president? If so, then maybe that is a point upon which we could frame an argument. But I have no interest in further explaining what it means to treat someone's words unseriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, EC said:

So the only two people that can be elected to the highest office is a socialist or an idiot with no principles at all? 

I sympathize with your position. I have been there--was there for the entire campaign until now. The America that we once knew is indeed dead. These two candidates perfectly represent the sort of paranoid welfare statism that now threatens to move the culture backward into full-blown dictatorship.

But I'm offering a reason to still vote. I think it matters very much which candidate selects perhaps the next four Supreme Court Justices. As Trump would say, "It's a HUGE deal!"

Maybe you'll decide that Hillary should pick them. Fine. It's a tough choice in a ridiculous political world. That's a given. But let's not give up on the country.

OUR country.

Fight that urge to roll over and die! Try something. Think harder! Vote!

Even if you later regret your vote, at least you tried to do something to save civilization from the abyss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Because the conclusion I drew was that I should not take their words seriously. What is confusing about that? Do you take every liar and fool that you know seriously? Why make an exception for Donald and Hillary? Because one of them will be president? If so, then maybe that is a point upon which we could frame an argument. But I have no interest in further explaining what it means to treat someone's words unseriously.

That's not what you need to explain. What you need to explain is how did you divine what Trump believes in, without taking his words seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to focus on actions more than mere words. Yes, a campaign slogan is made of words, but keep in mind that considerable resources are devoted to plastering that message across America in the form of campaign signs, hats, buttons, t-shirts, billboards, radio and TV commercials, etc. It's not only words at a town hall gathering, it's a nationwide advertising campaign. That's action.

 

Another action I found important was Trump's career as a businessman. Despite bankrupting some of his companies, he apparently has done well overall, and has not gotten himself thrown in jail. Clearly he has some idea of how to act in the best interest of his businesses. I therefore assume, admittedly assume, that this might translate into an attitude of seeking what he believes is best for the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Another action I found important was Trump's career as a businessman. Despite bankrupting some of his companies, he apparently has done well overall, and has not gotten himself thrown in jail. Clearly he has some idea of how to act in the best interest of his businesses. I therefore assume, admittedly assume, that this might translate into an attitude of seeking what he believes is best for the country.

He SHOULD be in jail for basically defrauding people and not paying people who trusted him to pay. He "clearly" has a good idea of how to game the system like his namesake Teflon Don. Mafia bosses and their ilk are notorious for avoiding jail - that Trump didn't go to jail is just how good he is at denying/evading responsibility. You also told us that he's a moron, or at best anti-intellectual. As time goes on, he is increasingly anti-intellectual. Worse yet, you don't think he's worth taking seriously, while telling us we should take his alleged wisdom about business seriously. Your assumption that his attitude about business might translate to "seeking the best for the country" is a ridiculous conclusion from your own words. He's either an idiot and doesn't know WHAT is best, or he is manipulating you to think he's virtuous.

4 liberal-ish Supreme Court judges is hardly scary, as alarmist a claim as it is. Frankly, it's less scary than what Populist Trump would get us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I tried to focus on actions more than mere words. Yes, a campaign slogan is made of words, but keep in mind that considerable resources are devoted to plastering that message across America in the form of campaign signs, hats, buttons, t-shirts, billboards, radio and TV commercials, etc. It's not only words at a town hall gathering, it's a nationwide advertising campaign. That's action.

 

Another action I found important was Trump's career as a businessman. Despite bankrupting some of his companies, he apparently has done well overall, and has not gotten himself thrown in jail. Clearly he has some idea of how to act in the best interest of his businesses. I therefore assume, admittedly assume, that this might translate into an attitude of seeking what he believes is best for the country.

To use one of Trump's favorite tactics: I'm not gonna say it, because I'm too nice a guy to insult you. 

....

But if someone were to say it, I'd have to agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. It's THIS easy to beat Trump. Clinton might as well take a vacation, and just have her staff run variations of this ad until Nov 8:

The best thing about it is, in more right wing states/districts, where showing Trump wanting to punish women for abortion or round up brown children wouldn't work, they can just flip the script and show Trump taking the opposite view on the same issues, instead.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2016 at 10:12 PM, Nicky said:

Trump listed a number of potential SCOTUS picks, a couple of months ago. There wasn't a single person on there who has behaved differently from previous Republican nominees. Every single one of them has a long track record of shoving their religious and political beliefs down people's throats.

That list is for replacements for Scalia. But when the elderly liberal judges retire or die in the next several years, the president will receive significant pressure from Democrats to pick liberal replacements. And the Republicans will want conservatives, of course.

In these cases, I think Trump is our best chance to see more moderate Justices selected, precisely because he is non-intellectual and swings both ways on many issues. And he might pick moderate judges in order to please both sides and gain bipartisan favors. Whereas Hillary is an intellectual liberal to the bone, and will have more support to replace liberal judge with liberal judge. Thus giving us more of the same for another twenty or thirty years of the Court.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

In these cases, I think Trump is our best chance to see more moderate Justices selected, precisely because he is non-intellectual and swings both ways on many issues.

He doesn't "swing both ways". He just lies a lot. And the day I vote for someone because he's a non-intellectual is the day I kill myself.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know about his judicial positions is his saying that his sister would make a good justice and his enthusiastic approval of the Kelo decision, upholding the right of government to use eminent domain for the benefit of private developers. I can't imagine why anybody here at OO would be optimistic about him on this question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2016 at 7:29 PM, softwareNerd said:

In your evaluation, would Hillary be worse than Obama. For instance, is she significantly more socialist that Obama? Some people say she's similarly socialist, but also corrupt and helps her Wall Street buddies which makes her a more fascist-style/GOP style statist. The issue I have with the second narrative is that corruption of that kind undercuts ideology. So, if it is true it makes her less ideological and more of an everyday politician.

I suppose she would be similar to Obama. He's done a lot of bad things, although the worst things that was predicted he could do never really materialized. It's still been more of a creeping socialism type thing with him. So, I'm guessing we'd get similar with Hillary.

I always disliked Hillary since I was a kid so don't want to see her anywhere near the Whitehouse, although I think that's becoming more and more likely. Regardless of what her Presidency ends up looking like, I still think it's the next person 4 or 8 years from now who will be our main concern in the context of threatening freedom.

I don't like being a pessimist, but I fully realize my view right now is rather pessimistic with regards to the countries future right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EC said:

I suppose she would be similar to Obama.

... ...

I don't like being a pessimist, but I fully realize my view right now is rather pessimistic with regards to the countries future right now.

Thanks for the reply. I think you're probably right about Hillary and Obama, except that she will probably be more aggressive than he is on foreign policy. 

The populist mood of the day does not bode well for the medium-term, regardless of whether she wins or Trump does. I think one simply has to insulate oneself -- to the best of one's ability --  from what one cannot change. With that done, life will probably be worse than it could be, and its frustrating knowing so, but it should still be pretty good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see the world is still sane. The morning after Trump threatened to put his opponent in prison if he wins:

NBC two way poll: Clinton +14

Rasmussen four way poll : Clinton +7 (Johnson 9%)

Nate Silver prediction based on state by state polling: Clinton 82% chance of victory (highest in the last two months), most likely a landslide with 338 electoral votes vs 200.

Rasmussen is a Republican leaning pollster that had Trump ahead a week before the debate, and had Romney ahead in 2012, all the way to the day of the election.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically, Utah has been the most Republican state out of all of them. Romney won Utah with 72.8%, Bush with 72%, Reagan with 75%.

New poll out of Utah: Trump 26, Clinton 26, McMullin 22, Johnson 14, Stein 1

(margin of error 4.4%; McMullin is the #neverTrump conservative candidate).

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664606/Poll-Trump-falls-into-tie-with-Clinton-among-Utah-voters.html

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...