Proof they're all in it together: Bush family to vote for HRC

[mingus]

I'm fascinated by the idea that voting against Trump is something that only establishment politicians would do.

I'm also fascinated by the laughable idea that Trump, who readily admits to using his wealth to procure influence in policy-making and other realms of existing governmental structures, is not an establishment candidate. If Mark Cuban is the Establishment (as suggested in the OP), Trump is as well -- necessarily -- even if he's fooled a bunch of scared white folks into believing for now that he doesn't.

And if Candidate Obama said some of the patently false things that Candidate Trump has offered on the stump about basic cons utional issues (supporting Article XII, for instance), he would have been absolutely skewered by the Right. (Obama was absolutely run through the ringer for his "57 states" comment). Indeed, when Candidate Kerry said he was for the war in Iraq before he was against it in 2004, he was pilloried by the Right as a flip-flopper; Candidate Trump admits he was for the war in Iraq before he was against it, and he's praised by the Right as a man of searching intellect and discernment.

Whatever is true about our politics any more, the one thing that is absolutely true is that actual principle has no real place at the table right now.

I agree with pretty much everything you said here wholeheartedly, but I think the use double-standards, lies/slander & personal attacks (of both party ideology, cons uency & candidates) as a way of getting your message to voters has at this point reached a level that is beyond damaging, it's destructive. Both parties do it.

Trump makes himself an easier target 'cause he's so proud & fascinated by himself & what he he's accomplished (& to the point of self-delusion, so that he's even proud of what he hasn't accomplished, but truly thinks he has), that the stupid, hateful & unfiltered he says gets makes the biggest ripples in the media.

But Clinton, I believe, really is just as ing disgusting as that guy. I think the biggest story of controversy & moral corruptness in this entire election has been the virtual non-story that was the DNC undermining Sanders' & his voters in secrecy. Because if you can't even trust that your & the collective vote mean anything the entire system just falls apart.

[xrayzebra]

Now isn't it something for the dimm-0-craps on here to say Trump is not qualified when they voted for a community organizer and prepared to vote for a dumbass blonde who could not answer the phone at 3 in the morning while one of her ambassadors was being murdered. Although she is good at giving 20 minute speeches, while worth nothing, gets millions for them.

[ElNono]

Now isn't it something for the dimm-0-craps on here to say Trump is not qualified when they voted for a community organizer and prepared to vote for a dumbass blonde who could not answer the phone at 3 in the morning while one of her ambassadors was being murdered. Although she is good at giving 20 minute speeches, while worth nothing, gets millions for them.

Bush 41 is dimm-0-craps?

One thing doesn't disqualify the other. It may very well be that Shillary is just as unqualified as Trump, although, despite what you might like or not about Barry, I get the feeling he will be remembered as a much better president than any of these two.

[ElNono]

I'm fascinated by the idea that voting against Trump is something that only establishment politicians would do.

I'm also fascinated by the laughable idea that Trump, who readily admits to using his wealth to procure influence in policy-making and other realms of existing governmental structures, is not an establishment candidate. If Mark Cuban is the Establishment (as suggested in the OP), Trump is as well -- necessarily -- even if he's fooled a bunch of scared white folks into believing for now that he doesn't.

And if Candidate Obama said some of the patently false things that Candidate Trump has offered on the stump about basic cons utional issues (supporting Article XII, for instance), he would have been absolutely skewered by the Right. (Obama was absolutely run through the ringer for his "57 states" comment). Indeed, when Candidate Kerry said he was for the war in Iraq before he was against it in 2004, he was pilloried by the Right as a flip-flopper; Candidate Trump admits he was for the war in Iraq before he was against it, and he's praised by the Right as a man of searching intellect and discernment.

Whatever is true about our politics any more, the one thing that is absolutely true is that actual principle has no real place at the table right now.

The "establishment" cop-out is the old "insider" cop-out, previously known as the "RINO" cop-out... it's also what brought us hits like "compromise is bad" and "let's shut down the government over petty "...

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Bush 41 is dimm-0-craps?

One thing doesn't disqualify the other. It may very well be that Shillary is just as unqualified as Trump, although, despite what you might like or not about Barry, I get the feeling he will be remembered as a much better president than any of these two.

Barry, Bush and Bill Clinton all had their goods and bads but these two will be mostly bad.

[ElNono]

Barry, Bush and Bill Clinton all had their goods and bads but these two will be mostly bad.

I concur. Hopefully a one term presidency.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

I concur. Hopefully a one term presidency.

Actually to rephrase my post, I should have said "Bushes" and included Reagan's name in there... Reagan was overrated, he got way too much credit for the fall of the USSR when in fact it fell apart due to the economics of spreading themselves out way too thin in the satellite countries. Also, Reagan started a dangerous trend that persists today with Obama, which was that of siding with the dangerous jihadis ("mujaheddin") in Afghanistan who wanted to murder us, the Russians, and everyone else non-conformant to their faith simply because of religion. He should have fostered better relations and alliances with Gorbyachev and the rest of the secular world.

People blame Obama for "sympathizing" with the jihadists because of Obama's heritage and Muslim father, but it's actually more like Obama just trying to be diplomatic with the allies he was dealt. Reagan was the guy who strengthened alliances with our enemies because everyone had been in such panic at the time over the oil shortage crisis.

[Xevious]

I think the stakes are too great for even conservatives to vote Trump. Hillary is not likeable or trustworthy in any respect, but you kind of know what you're going to get with her. People who think that Trump's a serious Republican candidate are getting trolled hard. Just look through his personal history and business dealings and tell me with a straight face that he'll be a fair president without any conflicts of interest. Best case scenario with this ty election is a one-term Hillary while the GOP gets their together and fields a real candidate in four years.

[boutons_deux]

"fields a real candidate in four years."

let's see:

totally ty, war criminal, C-student, failed businessman dubya lost in 2000 and was elected by Scalia, and

just barely won in 2004 as a "war time president" with smallest victory margin of any in bent,

then McLiar was destroyed,

then Bishop Gekko eas destroyed,

now the ridiculous, lying, grifter, fraudster clown Trash.

What are the chances BigCorp/1%/VRWC, or the revolting Trash supporters of today, put up an electable candidate in 2016?

[101A]

t... He should have fostered better relations and alliances with Gorbyachev and the rest of the secular world.

He would have done this because he knew that Mikhail would take over two years AFTER Reagan left office?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

I think the stakes are too great for even conservatives to vote Trump. Hillary is not likeable or trustworthy in any respect, but you kind of know what you're going to get with her. People who think that Trump's a serious Republican candidate are getting trolled hard. Just look through his personal history and business dealings and tell me with a straight face that he'll be a fair president without any conflicts of interest. Best case scenario with this ty election is a one-term Hillary while the GOP gets their together and fields a real candidate in four years.

Two caveats:
1) SCOTUS
2) It's hard to beat an in bent.

[ElNono]

Two caveats:
1) SCOTUS
2) It's hard to beat an in bent.

Those two caveats apply to Trump too. It's a lose-lose situation.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Those two caveats apply to Trump too. It's a lose

Who would Trump put in SCOTUS? A hamster?

[Warlord23]

Both candidates are ty, but what sets them apart is how much damage they can do at their worst. Clinton is liable to favor corporations, enrich herself, expand drone strikes and deploy more ground troops in the Middle East. Trump could do all of those things, plus start a recession, break up NATO, let an environmental catastrophe happen and, most importantly, dumb down politics even more than it already is for generations to come.