.[quote=“RatMan, post:142, topic:74203”]
but I’d really be interested in who President Trump would appoint to the Supreme Court. Seriously.
[/quote]
He’s previously suggested his sister, but also William Pryor or Diane Sykes.
2 Likes
"A smart guy, I’d pick the smartest lawyer that you’ve ever seen, a real winner, very smart. And can I just say that I have seen some real winners in my time? Look at all these beautiful hats, we’re going to follow what it says — look at that — we’re going to make America great again.”
3 Likes
For the record, I’d prefer Wanda Sykes.
10 Likes
If the choice is between Trump and Clinton, and registered Democrats stay home because they can’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary, it only benefits Trump. And yes, if Trump wins, and we see a low Democratic voter turnout, it’ll be on their shoulders.
so the choices are nuclear explosion or shot in the face?
If Clinton can’t convince registered Democrats to vote for her, that’s on her shoulders.
3 Likes
I don’t consider voting for Hillary Clinton the equivalent of being shot in the face, but if you feel that strongly about it, by all means, stay home.
1 Like
I won’t stay home, but I might have to flip a coin between Hilary or Kodos.
I really dislike the “anyone but _____.” type of voting. I don’t like to choose between a giant douche or a turd sandwich.
Bernie Sanders has made it very clear that he’ll support Hillary if he isn’t the chosen candidate, because he knows the choice is much bigger than himself. A Democratic president, even one who you don’t feel is ideal, will prevent progress made in the last 8 years from being undone. It’ll prevent a hard-line conservative from being added to the Supreme Court. It’ll protect healthcare, the environment, and public media, all of which will be undone under a Republican president. I’d rather have Bernie as my nominee, but if he isn’t, I’ll go with his recommendation rather than watch the world burn out of spite.
2 Likes
I’m not going to get into an argument about necessary and sufficient causes. I just don’t think your can characterize Sanders supporters who don’t bother to show up for Clinton as doing so out of spite. It’s because they genuinely don’t feel strongly that Clinton would be a better president than Trump. Obviously the country has a substantial number of people who feel that.
2 Likes
When people decide they’d rather vote for a cartoon alien overlord than Hillary, that’s a wee bit spiteful, I feel. While I hate the fact that it comes down to it, I think it’s more important to protect what we have from Trump/Cruz/Rubio than to refuse to vote for someone who’ll at least keep the motor running.
2 Likes
I don’t get a vote, and even if I did, I’d be amazed if it made a difference in WA.
On a personal level, I’d be prepared to (unenthusiastically) vote for Clinton if Sanders wasn’t the candidate, but I wouldn’t blame people who decided that they didn’t want to vote for her if Trump ended up winning.
There’s no entitlement to someone’s vote, you have to earn it.
Might be some people who genuinely would rather see any outsider win, and have Trump as their second choice after Sanders, too. Maybe.
5 Likes
Are you suggesting Trump isn’t a cartoon alien overlord? Because that’s both generous and presumptuous.
5 Likes
Trump is going to have a lot of people actually vote for him not just stay home, and many will do so because they think he is the best candidate for president. Characterizing that as spite is like saying that no one really disagrees with you about who would make a good president, it’s just that some people are childish.
First off, Kodos has some progressive ideas for America, like abortions for some and miniature flags for others. Secondly, if Kodos were to win there would still be a woman president. So 
Wow, better than the slate of Republican candidates.
5 Likes
^^what she said. You know he’s a buffoon, I know, lots of people know. But a lot don’t and don’t find the distasteful rhetoric he offers so far from their own angry hearts.
It’s understandable many ways, all about where you’re seeing it from. Today we have the benefit of history, but if LBJ pissed on your leg and that’s all you knew of him, would you have necessarily picked him over Goldwater in 64? The same analogy reversed fits for Trump.
That’s ludicrous. If you mean that Trump’s foreign policy “position” is essentially a reversion back to isolationist, strongman tactics better suited to the 1800s than now, then yes, he’s “right behind” Sanders.
2 Likes
As with Gore, many are less concerned by Clinton’s conscience than with judicial appointments — and the women and girls in the south who depend on clinic access.
3 Likes
