Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[MDM]

LOL, exactly what I'd expect from National Review. I would say its well reasoned only in its ability to spin an answer to the question of why so many in the GOP base support a misogynistic, racist, jingoist demagogue. Surprise, surprise, the author spends 3/4 of the article bashing the Democrats for being unpatriotic, soft on immigration and supporting gay rights and claiming Trump supporters are really disaffected Democrats who joined the GOP. So what does that say about the GOP if they are considered the preferable party for people who appreciate a misogynistic, racist, jingoistic demagogue?

I suspect Trump's supporters would say that your characterization of him is inaccurate.

Personally, my objection to Trump is the same as my objection to Obama: both men seem to exhibit the narcissism "it's all about me - I'm the smartest guy in the room."  Of course, Trump's supporters tell me I'm wrong about Trump and Obama's supporters tell me I'm wrong about Obama, so....

[Kris]

LOL, exactly what I'd expect from National Review. I would say its well reasoned only in its ability to spin an answer to the question of why so many in the GOP base support a misogynistic, racist, jingoist demagogue. Surprise, surprise, the author spends 3/4 of the article bashing the Democrats for being unpatriotic, soft on immigration and supporting gay rights and claiming Trump supporters are really disaffected Democrats who joined the GOP. So what does that say about the GOP if they are considered the preferable party for people who appreciate a misogynistic, racist, jingoistic demagogue?

I suspect Trump's supporters would say that your characterization of him is inaccurate.

Personally, my objection to Trump is the same as my objection to Obama: both men seem to exhibit the narcissism "it's all about me - I'm the smartest guy in the room."  Of course, Trump's supporters tell me I'm wrong about Trump and Obama's supporters tell me I'm wrong about Obama, so....

I don't understand the insistence on Obama's supposed hyper-narcissism by those who don't like him.  Trying to find and actual evidence of that is pretty tough by googling, as the vast majority of hits are clearly right-wing sites instead of relatively reputable and objective sources.  The two actually decent ones I did see mention that they place Obama fairly low on the scale among presidents.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/were-only-human/the-10-most-narcissistic-u-s-presidents.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201504/what-we-all-get-so-wrong-about-narcissists

ETA:  And, it turns out that it's even harder to find reputable sources that discuss Trump's level of narcissism.  The closest I've found is this, which does seem to encapsulate what I have heard that psychologists say about him.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/stop-walking-eggshells/201511/therapists-confirm-trumps-narcissistic-personality-disorder

[MDM]

I don't understand the insistence on Obama's supposed hyper-narcissism....
...it's even harder to find reputable sources that discuss Trump's level of narcissism.

Does that mean Trump and Obama really are both collegial, collaborative leaders who work well with others?

[Kris]

I don't understand the insistence on Obama's supposed hyper-narcissism....
...it's even harder to find reputable sources that discuss Trump's level of narcissism.

Does that mean Trump and Obama really are both collegial, collaborative leaders who work well with others?

I don't understand the point of your question. If you are sarcastically suggesting I am somehow saying that the relative dearth of good information about this shows they aren't narcissistic... That's quite a non sequitur, especially given the rest of my post, which you snipped.

Not to mention that lack of collegiality and collaboration in and of themselves aren't strong indicators of narcissism.  Narcissism itself is a much more specific diagnosis, despite how popular culture bandies the term around.

[MDM]

I don't understand the point of your question.

Mostly looking to understand if you think they are similar to or different from each other in their leadership styles. 

I think they are similar in that each seems to believe he alone knows best and isn't much interested in weighing opposing ideas. 

But I've never been in a closed door meeting with either, so maybe each has a private style different from the political posturing we see in public.

[Kris]

I don't understand the point of your question.

Mostly looking to understand if you think they are similar to or different from each other in their leadership styles. 

I think they are similar in that each seems to believe he alone knows best and isn't much interested in weighing opposing ideas. 

But I've never been in a closed door meeting with either, so maybe each has a private style different from the political posturing we see in public.

That is a significantly different question from whether one or both of them is a narcissist. 

[MDM]

That is a significantly different question from whether one or both of them is a narcissist.

Maybe, but "narcissist" = "he alone knows best" is an equivalence that many non-psychiatrically trained would make.

Would you like to answer either question?

[Kris]

That is a significantly different question from whether one or both of them is a narcissist.

Maybe, but "narcissist" = "he alone knows best" is an equivalence that many non-psychiatrically trained would make.

Would you like to answer either question?

Right. But I think that's what makes it kind of meaningless. Essentially, in that case the word doesn't mean what it means. And used in that light, it seems more to mean, "I don't like his leadership style."  You yourself pointed out that people you know who don't like Trump say he's a "narcissist" at about the same rate that people you know who don't like Obama say he's a "narcissist." Essentially, that's pretty much saying that people who don't like Trump don't like Trump, and people who don't like Obama don't like Obama.  Meh.

So, no, that particular question seems uninteresting and basically meaningless to me.  Because it's more or less obvious.  Whether someone is actually diagnosable as narcissistic is at least a more potentially verifiable question, and should be less subject to simple bias.

[dramaman]

I don't understand the point of your question.

Mostly looking to understand if you think they are similar to or different from each other in their leadership styles. 

I think they are similar in that each seems to believe he alone knows best and isn't much interested in weighing opposing ideas.

Anyone who believes they should be President clearly has an enlarged ego. I'm not sure what evidence you have for separating out Trump and Obama for extra criticism other than you probably don't like them.

[MDM]

Anyone who believes they should be President clearly has an enlarged ego. I'm not sure what evidence you have for separating out Trump and Obama for extra criticism other than you probably don't like them.

We all decide whether to vote for someone or not based on how much we "like" (defined however each person chooses) one candidate vs. another, correct?

[Kris]

Anyone who believes they should be President clearly has an enlarged ego. I'm not sure what evidence you have for separating out Trump and Obama for extra criticism other than you probably don't like them.

We all decide whether to vote for someone or not based on how much we "like" (defined however each person chooses) one candidate vs. another, correct?

Sure, but it is also possible to try to be objective about their qualities. For example, I think Ted Cruz is either batshit crazy or incredibly cynical, and has no conscience whatsoever. But I acknowledge that he is very intelligent.  I like Bernie Sanders' politics a great deal, but I have reservations about his ability to lead effectively.  I think Jeb Bush isn't all that bad, for a neocon, but he's so spineless I think he'd be susceptible to being used by more radical right-wingers, like his brother was.

You know, like that. Like, I acknowledge that most people have strengths and weaknesses. Which makes most of Obama's very vocal critics seem a little silly, in that they seem to think he is the devil incarnate.  Hard to take their opinions seriously, as many of the same people who call him narcissistic and a dictator also call him weak and say he leads from behind, and all sorts of hyperbolic nonsense about how he is the worst president in history.  Makes no sense.

[MDM]

Sure, but it is also possible to try to be objective about their qualities.

Indeed it is.

What I observe, though, is when I look at a Democrat (e.g., Obama) and a Republican (e.g., Trump) and opine that I see similar shortcomings in each, the partisans on each side will tell me how wrong I am about their favorite, while allowing that my perceptions about the other guy are valid.

Not that there is anything particularly noteworthy about this observation....

[Kris]

Sure, but it is also possible to try to be objective about their qualities.

Indeed it is.

What I observe, though, is when I look at a Democrat (e.g., Obama) and a Republican (e.g., Trump) and opine that I see similar shortcomings in each, the partisans on each side will tell me how wrong I am about their favorite, while allowing that my perceptions about the other guy are valid.

Not that there is anything particularly noteworthy about this observation....

Okay. But you and I began our conversation with whether Trump and Obama were narcissistic. My point was that it was partisan to fling about the word narcissistic to demonize the other person. Perhaps that's the other side of the same coin: if you use words without paying attention to what they mean, you can tar anyone with whatever demonizing word you want (e.g., narcissist, fascist, nazi...).

I do not see a lot of similar shortcomings between Obama and Trump. But they do both have shortcomings. In terms of "narcissism", my sense from reading and discussing with people trained to diagnose is that Trump exhibits many of these traits, whereas Obama does not. You may not like his style of leadership, but that is a separate issue. Flinging words without care as to their meaning does no one any good in the long run.

[MDM]

Okay. But you and I began our conversation with whether Trump and Obama were narcissistic. My point was that it was partisan to fling about the word narcissistic to demonize the other person. Perhaps that's the other side of the same coin: if you use words without paying attention to what they mean, you can tar anyone with whatever demonizing word you want (e.g., narcissist, fascist, nazi...).

I do not see a lot of similar shortcomings between Obama and Trump. But they do both have shortcomings. In terms of "narcissism", my sense from reading and discussing with people trained to diagnose is that Trump exhibits many of these traits, whereas Obama does not. You may not like his style of leadership, but that is a separate issue. Flinging words without care as to their meaning does no one any good in the long run.

You may well be correct about the implications of the word "narcissism" when discussed in medical school, a psychiatric journal, etc.

I'm happy to be judged in the court of general usage, in which "extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type" (as found in a google search for "narcissism" - highlight added) is an accepted definition.

As it seems we are in agreement on Trump, I won't belabor the point on him.  For Obama I offer http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/us/politics/obama-plays-to-win-in-politics-and-everything-else.html, including “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

I'd much rather vote for a person - of either party - who is willing to listen to competing ideas without dismissing them out of hand.

[Kris]

Okay. But you and I began our conversation with whether Trump and Obama were narcissistic. My point was that it was partisan to fling about the word narcissistic to demonize the other person. Perhaps that's the other side of the same coin: if you use words without paying attention to what they mean, you can tar anyone with whatever demonizing word you want (e.g., narcissist, fascist, nazi...).

I do not see a lot of similar shortcomings between Obama and Trump. But they do both have shortcomings. In terms of "narcissism", my sense from reading and discussing with people trained to diagnose is that Trump exhibits many of these traits, whereas Obama does not. You may not like his style of leadership, but that is a separate issue. Flinging words without care as to their meaning does no one any good in the long run.

You may well be correct about the implications of the word "narcissism" when discussed in medical school, a psychiatric journal, etc.

I'm happy to be judged in the court of general usage, in which "extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type" (as found in a google search for "narcissism" - highlight added) is an accepted definition.

As it seems we are in agreement on Trump, I won't belabor the point on him.  For Obama I offer http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/us/politics/obama-plays-to-win-in-politics-and-everything-else.html, including “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

I'd much rather vote for a person - of either party - who is willing to listen to competing ideas without dismissing them out of hand.

Well, two things:

One: this seems like a really subjective way to judge a president or a candidate. Dependent upon, for example, the media sources and the ways they choose to report on him or her.

Two: without actual discussions with people who work with this person (as you say, you have never been in a closed meeting with either person), the whole point seems pretty moot.

Again: meh.

[MDM]

One: this seems like a really subjective way to judge a president or a candidate. Dependent upon, for example, the media sources and the ways they choose to report on him or her.

Well, yes.  Lacking a calibrated tricorder, most judgments by one person of another are subjective.

Two: without actual discussions with people who work with this person (as you say, you have never been in a closed meeting with either person), the whole point seems pretty moot.

Perhaps.  As I'm unlikely to have such discussions with the inner circle of any of the current candidates, however, I'm left to form opinions based on other inputs.  Suggestions for improving this process are welcome.

[Kris]

One: this seems like a really subjective way to judge a president or a candidate. Dependent upon, for example, the media sources and the ways they choose to report on him or her.

Well, yes.  Lacking a calibrated tricorder, most judgments by one person of another are subjective.

Two: without actual discussions with people who work with this person (as you say, you have never been in a closed meeting with either person), the whole point seems pretty moot.

Perhaps.  As I'm unlikely to have such discussions with the inner circle of any of the current candidates, however, I'm left to form opinions based on other inputs.  Suggestions for improving this process are welcome.

Suggestions for improvement:

1) A serious sit-down with yourself to take stock of your biases,and adjust accordingly.

2) A recognition that certain organizations may be more academic minded and less partisan, and a corresponding effort to seek out the analyses of those organizations over, say, one's neighbor or best friend.

It is possible, after all.

[MDM]

...certain organizations may be more academic minded and less partisan, and a corresponding effort to seek out the analyses of those organizations

A modern day Diogenesian search for an honest organization, eh?  Not a bad idea - any candidates?

It can be interesting to see the left- and right-wing takes on issues often juxtaposed in realclearpolitics.com (or any other site that does so).  E.g., today it has http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/jonathan-alter-article-1.2498468 next to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/17/obama_sired_americas_discontent_129348.html.  Reading through each with a critical eye to determine which perspective is more accurate can be a good exercise in challenging one's own preconceptions.

[Kris]

...certain organizations may be more academic minded and less partisan, and a corresponding effort to seek out the analyses of those organizations

A modern day Diogenesian search for an honest organization, eh?  Not a bad idea - any candidates?

It can be interesting to see the left- and right-wing takes on issues often juxtaposed in realclearpolitics.com (or any other site that does so).  E.g., today it has http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/jonathan-alter-article-1.2498468 next to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/17/obama_sired_americas_discontent_129348.html.  Reading through each with a critical eye to determine which perspective is more accurate can be a good exercise in challenging one's own preconceptions.

Well, in terms of science, Nature and Science might be better than, say, Breitbart.

I mean, it is sort of possible.

[dramaman]

Okay. But you and I began our conversation with whether Trump and Obama were narcissistic. My point was that it was partisan to fling about the word narcissistic to demonize the other person. Perhaps that's the other side of the same coin: if you use words without paying attention to what they mean, you can tar anyone with whatever demonizing word you want (e.g., narcissist, fascist, nazi...).

I do not see a lot of similar shortcomings between Obama and Trump. But they do both have shortcomings. In terms of "narcissism", my sense from reading and discussing with people trained to diagnose is that Trump exhibits many of these traits, whereas Obama does not. You may not like his style of leadership, but that is a separate issue. Flinging words without care as to their meaning does no one any good in the long run.

You may well be correct about the implications of the word "narcissism" when discussed in medical school, a psychiatric journal, etc.

I'm happy to be judged in the court of general usage, in which "extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type" (as found in a google search for "narcissism" - highlight added) is an accepted definition.

As it seems we are in agreement on Trump, I won't belabor the point on him.  For Obama I offer http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/us/politics/obama-plays-to-win-in-politics-and-everything-else.html, including “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

I'd much rather vote for a person - of either party - who is willing to listen to competing ideas without dismissing them out of hand.

Based upon your own definition, you've certainly provided evidence that Obama thinks highly of his own abilities. Whether or not that is terrible in and of itself, it doesn't even meet the requirements of your own definition. According to your definition, Obama must also crave admiration and be selfish. The former is easier to assume than the latter, but for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct on both accounts, as except for a convenient ad hominem attack, the alleged narcissism is not the real problem you seem to have with Obama.

You consistently claim that Obama is not 'willing to listen to competing ideas without dismissing them out of hand'. What exactly do you mean by this? Are you complaining that Obama refuses to negotiate and compromise? The last 7 years has proven that to be false. Are you criticizing him for being unwilling to change his ideas and positions? He certainly did so in regard to gay marriage. Are you claiming that this Democrat won't consider Republican ideas? He certainly did so when proposing expanding healthcare. The ACA was based on Republican ideas from the 90's and Republican Romney's Massachusetts healthcare reform in 2006.

Or perhaps you dislike the confidence that Obama projects in certain core convictions that are contrary to what you believe. Hmmm, a confident politician with core convictions in which they believe they are right and those who disagree with them are wrong. I suppose there are some spineless politicians who have no convictions and simply do whatever is politically expedient. Is that what you prefer?

[TheNick]

He certainly did so when proposing expanding healthcare. The ACA was based on Republican ideas from the 90's and Republican Romney's Massachusetts healthcare reform in 2006.

This is such a weak talking point.  The fact is he wasn't willing to compromise with the republicans in office now...its really irrelevant if he said he borrowed ideas some Republicans had 25 years ago, or borrowed ideas from a centrist republican from a super liberal state.

By your logic I could claim I'm a proud member of the KKK and I got the idea from the democrats, because democrats were the party of the KKK and often targeted republicans alongside blacks as republicans fought for equal rights and passed anti lynching laws.

You could find people from either party at some point in history that supported pretty much any whacky idea you'd want to propose...that's not compromising, compromising is dealing with the other people currently in office who are actually relevant right now.  When social security was originally passed, there were as many democrats who voted no for it as republicans, can I claim I'm anti social security because democrats voted against its creation?

[MDM]

Based upon your own definition, you've certainly provided evidence that Obama thinks highly of his own abilities. Whether or not that is terrible in and of itself, it doesn't even meet the requirements of your own definition. According to your definition, Obama must also crave admiration and be selfish. The former is easier to assume than the latter, but for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct on both accounts, as except for a convenient ad hominem attack, the alleged narcissism is not the real problem you seem to have with Obama.

You consistently claim that Obama is not 'willing to listen to competing ideas without dismissing them out of hand'. What exactly do you mean by this? Are you complaining that Obama refuses to negotiate and compromise? The last 7 years has proven that to be false. Are you criticizing him for being unwilling to change his ideas and positions? He certainly did so in regard to gay marriage. Are you claiming that this Democrat won't consider Republican ideas? He certainly did so when proposing expanding healthcare. The ACA was based on Republican ideas from the 90's and Republican Romney's Massachusetts healthcare reform in 2006.

Or perhaps you dislike the confidence that Obama projects in certain core convictions that are contrary to what you believe. Hmmm, a confident politician with core convictions in which they believe they are right and those who disagree with them are wrong. I suppose there are some spineless politicians who have no convictions and simply do whatever is politically expedient. Is that what you prefer?

As noted above,

What I observe, though, is when I look at a Democrat (e.g., Obama) and a Republican (e.g., Trump) and opine that I see similar shortcomings in each, the partisans on each side will tell me how wrong I am about their favorite, while allowing that my perceptions about the other guy are valid.

Not that there is anything particularly noteworthy about this observation....

[Glenstache]

Obama is a tangent, but this seems relevant to some comments above:

Not too long ago, the President and I were working on a speech that we knew would get a lot of attention. Here, let me point out that he’s really the chief speechwriter. He’s a better writer than I am — which he won’t hesitate to point out — and if he had 48 hours in a day, he’d write his own speeches. So I view my job as to gather his thoughts, and try to give him a draft he can work with — one that says what he would if he had the time.

https://medium.com/@WhiteHouse/watch-and-read-white-house-chief-speechwriter-cody-keenan-s-commencement-address-to-nyu-s-wagner-d6a543585af#.70l6oygzx

With a small amount of effort you can find similar comments from his other speech writers. I heard an interview prior to the SOTU saying the same thing just a few days ago. I'm sure there are cynics who would say that these comments are orchestrated fluff, but it is also possible that he is intelligent and good with words and has confidence in it.

[Kris]

...certain organizations may be more academic minded and less partisan, and a corresponding effort to seek out the analyses of those organizations

A modern day Diogenesian search for an honest organization, eh?  Not a bad idea - any candidates?

It can be interesting to see the left- and right-wing takes on issues often juxtaposed in realclearpolitics.com (or any other site that does so).  E.g., today it has http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/jonathan-alter-article-1.2498468 next to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/17/obama_sired_americas_discontent_129348.html.  Reading through each with a critical eye to determine which perspective is more accurate can be a good exercise in challenging one's own preconceptions.

Yes, I do have some suggestions. As a matter of fact, you will find them cited  above by me when we first started this conversation.  Psychology Today, for example, may be a more honest organization in discussing narcissism than, say, Breitbart.

Look, though.  You yourself have acknowledged that you don't actually care whether Obama is actually a narcissist. So the discussion of whether and where to find objective sources is kind of moot.  Rather, you want me to agree (I guess) that he has an inflated ego and doesn't play well with others. 

I find it interesting how so many people who dislike Obama seem nearly obsessed with "proving" that he has absolutely no redeeming qualities and that he is categorically the worst in every way imaginable.  If that is what you are seeking, then fine:

I, Kris, do solemnly state that Obama is without a doubt a narcissistic, evil dictator.

Will that do?

And then maybe we can let this discussion get back to *legitimate* criticisms of *actual* 2016 presidential candidates?

[MDM]

Well, in terms of science, Nature and Science might be better than, say, Breitbart.

Psychology Today, for example, may be a more honest organization in discussing narcissism than, say, Breitbart.

It would seem Breitbart is not your favorite.... ;)

[Kris]

Well, in terms of science, Nature and Science might be better than, say, Breitbart.

Psychology Today, for example, may be a more honest organization in discussing narcissism than, say, Breitbart.

It would seem Breitbart is not your favorite.... ;)

As it shouldn't be for people who generally want their news to contain truth.

And yes, it was a relevant example, because in trying to find actual information about narcissism and presidents, Breitbart came up over and over as one of the main peddlers of this Obama narcissist thing. But If you need me to denounce some left wing news sites, I can do that, too. Addicting Info, for example, is an appalling piece of trash.

There, am I allowed to be taken seriously now?

[MDM]

Look, though.  You yourself have acknowledged that you don't actually care whether Obama is actually a narcissist. So the discussion of whether and where to find objective sources is kind of moot. 

And then maybe we can let this discussion get back to *legitimate* criticisms of *actual* 2016 presidential candidates?

I did mean the search for objective sources in the context of the 2016 presidential candidates, and I agree that such a forward-looking discussion is much more useful than a retrospective of who said and meant what in the past.

[Kris]

Look, though.  You yourself have acknowledged that you don't actually care whether Obama is actually a narcissist. So the discussion of whether and where to find objective sources is kind of moot. 

And then maybe we can let this discussion get back to *legitimate* criticisms of *actual* 2016 presidential candidates?

I did mean the search for objective sources in the context of the 2016 presidential candidates, and I agree that such a forward-looking discussion is much more useful than a retrospective of who said and meant what in the past.

Lol.

[dramaman]

He certainly did so when proposing expanding healthcare. The ACA was based on Republican ideas from the 90's and Republican Romney's Massachusetts healthcare reform in 2006.

This is such a weak talking point.  The fact is he wasn't willing to compromise with the republicans in office now...its really irrelevant if he said he borrowed ideas some Republicans had 25 years ago, or borrowed ideas from a centrist republican from a super liberal state.

By your logic I could claim I'm a proud member of the KKK and I got the idea from the democrats, because democrats were the party of the KKK and often targeted republicans alongside blacks as republicans fought for equal rights and passed anti lynching laws.

You could find people from either party at some point in history that supported pretty much any whacky idea you'd want to propose...that's not compromising, compromising is dealing with the other people currently in office who are actually relevant right now.  When social security was originally passed, there were as many democrats who voted no for it as republicans, can I claim I'm anti social security because democrats voted against its creation?

Actually, the ACA being based on a Republican idea was not intended as an example of compromising. I used it as an example of one party borrowing ideas originally proposed by another party. But now that you mention it, it was also an example of compromising given that the traditional Democratic solution for expanding healthcare was to use the public option, AKA government insurance. That was abandoned early on as a sign to the Republicans that Obama wanted to meet them in the middle. Of course the Republicans decided that they would rather shut the door in his face and obstruct rather than pass anything even resembling healthcare expansion.

Another example is the budget deal of 2010 in the Bush tax cuts were preserved for families of ALL income levels for 2 years, despite Obama's original pledge to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy. He also compromised on the so-called fiscal cliff legislation in 2013 eliminating most of the planned tax increases. These are all well documented, notable compromises that Obama made. It stands to reason that many more compromises took place behind the scenes as well.

As for out of the blue bringing up the KKK and pre-1960's racist Democrats... Hey, I have an idea, let's inject irrelevant racism into a discussion of modern day politics. Because, you know, that ALWAYS goes so well.

[TheNick]

Actually, the ACA being based on a Republican idea was not intended as an example of compromising. I used it as an example of one party borrowing ideas originally proposed by another party. But now that you mention it, it was also an example of compromising given that the traditional Democratic solution for expanding healthcare was to use the public option, AKA government insurance. That was abandoned early on as a sign to the Republicans that Obama wanted to meet them in the middle. Of course the Republicans decided that they would rather shut the door in his face and obstruct rather than pass anything even resembling healthcare expansion.

Right...it literally got 0 republican votes and it only passed because reconciliation was controversially used.  The reason the idea single payer and the public option were dropped was because democrats couldn't even get enough democrats on board.

Another example is the budget deal of 2010 in the Bush tax cuts were preserved for families of ALL income levels for 2 years, despite Obama's original pledge to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy. He also compromised on the so-called fiscal cliff legislation in 2013 eliminating most of the planned tax increases. These are all well documented, notable compromises that Obama made. It stands to reason that many more compromises took place behind the scenes as well.

Interesting how those other examples of Obama compromising you give all come after Republicans took control of the house...you know...when he was forced to compromise...unlike with Obamacare where all he had to do was get democrats on board.

I'm not saying the guy has never compromised since he has been in office...but trying to paint out Obamacare as a great compromise is simply laughable.

As for out of the blue bringing up the KKK and pre-1960's racist Democrats... Hey, I have an idea, let's inject irrelevant racism into a discussion of modern day politics. Because, you know, that ALWAYS goes so well.

Yeah its about as pointless as trying to say a bill was bipartisan even though it got zero votes from one side of the aisle because some republicans 30 years ago would have supported it or, or a republican governor from one of the most liberal states tried something similar.

[nereo]

is "Endorsed by someone who's ideology you don't agree with" considered a legitimate criticism of a candidate? 
I'm honeslty asking here.  IF endorsements matter, and you don't agree with the person giving the endorsement, is it valid to then extend that as a reason not to want to support a candidate?

...and yes, I am speaking specifically of Palin's endorsement of Trump here, but this question extends beyond just this particular endorsement.

[MDM]

is "Endorsed by someone who's ideology you don't agree with" considered a legitimate criticism of a candidate? 
I'm honeslty asking here.  IF endorsements matter, and you don't agree with the person giving the endorsement, is it valid to then extend that as a reason not to want to support a candidate?

...and yes, I am speaking specifically of Palin's endorsement of Trump here, but this question extends beyond just this particular endorsement.

Sure, it's legitimate to draw inferences from the company a person keeps.  Of course, not every endorsement is welcomed by a candidate, so in general it would be worth confirming that.  In this instance it seems clear Trump welcomes Palin's endorsement.

There can be a problem of multiple endorsements.  E.g., if you don't like the defense industry and are trying to decide between Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton, it probably doesn't help to learn that each has received about the same amount from that source: https://www.rt.com/usa/326058-defense-donors-clinton-cruz/.

[nereo]

is "Endorsed by someone who's ideology you don't agree with" considered a legitimate criticism of a candidate? 
I'm honeslty asking here.  IF endorsements matter, and you don't agree with the person giving the endorsement, is it valid to then extend that as a reason not to want to support a candidate?

...and yes, I am speaking specifically of Palin's endorsement of Trump here, but this question extends beyond just this particular endorsement.

Sure, it's legitimate to draw inferences from the company a person keeps.  Of course, not every endorsement is welcomed by a candidate, so in general it would be worth confirming that.  In this instance it seems clear Trump welcomes Palin's endorsement.

There can be a problem of multiple endorsements.  E.g., if you don't like the defense industry and are trying to decide between Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton, it probably doesn't help to learn that each has received about the same amount from that source: https://www.rt.com/usa/326058-defense-donors-clinton-cruz/.

Good points.  I guess I don't put as much stock into industries and companies giving compaign contributions to a particular (or multiple) candidates.  I see this is just business, and contributing to more than one compaign is basically them hedging their bets.  If you are in the defense industry a few million$ might be a wise investment to make sure the future president doesn't feel snubbed by you, regardless of who that might be.

But when it's an individual who stands up and says "____ should be the next president, and is better than everyone else in the race" - well that's more choosing a specific side.

[dramaman]

Actually, the ACA being based on a Republican idea was not intended as an example of compromising. I used it as an example of one party borrowing ideas originally proposed by another party. But now that you mention it, it was also an example of compromising given that the traditional Democratic solution for expanding healthcare was to use the public option, AKA government insurance. That was abandoned early on as a sign to the Republicans that Obama wanted to meet them in the middle. Of course the Republicans decided that they would rather shut the door in his face and obstruct rather than pass anything even resembling healthcare expansion.

Right...it literally got 0 republican votes and it only passed because reconciliation was controversially used.

That's funny if you think it that was what caused the Republicans to start obstructing. McConnell slammed the door on healthcare expansion months before. There was no chance that Republicans would provide any meaningful participation and that was why they needed to use the reconciliation process.

Another example is the budget deal of 2010 in the Bush tax cuts were preserved for families of ALL income levels for 2 years, despite Obama's original pledge to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy. He also compromised on the so-called fiscal cliff legislation in 2013 eliminating most of the planned tax increases. These are all well documented, notable compromises that Obama made. It stands to reason that many more compromises took place behind the scenes as well.

Interesting how those other examples of Obama compromising you give all come after Republicans took control of the house...you know...when he was forced to compromise...unlike with Obamacare where all he had to do was get democrats on board.

I'm not saying the guy has never compromised since he has been in office...

Considering my entire point is that Obama's record shows that he was willing and able to work with the other side, I appreciate you agreeing with me.

but trying to paint out Obamacare as a great compromise is simply laughable.

What is laughable is the idea that the Republicans didn't participate because Obama didn't compromise enough. Here is basically what happened....

Democrats and Republicans stand at opposite ends of a football field.

Obama: Let's walk to the 50 yard line and meet the Republicans where they last passed healthcare reform just two years ago in Massachusetts.

Republicans: That's not nearly far enough but we'll talk with you.

Obama: Okay I'm on the 50 yard line. Now what?

Republicans: That's not enough. Keep walking towards us?

Obama: C'mon guys. The people elected me president. Elections have meaning. How much farther are you asking for?

Republicans: You just keep walking and we'll tell you when to stop.

Obama: You know, I think you just want me to keep walking until nobody on my team can support this. I really don't think you guys are wanting to negotiate in good faith.

Republicans: Whatever, just keep walking.

Obama: I can probably do this without you.

Republicans: What! You are so arrogant and uncompromising!

Obama: Okay then. According to these rules we're stopping here and calling it a game. I had hoped we both could win, but it looks like my team is the only winner.

Republicans: What! We don't like those rules! That's not what they were intended for. You're a cheat!

Obama: Whatever, dudes. Game's over.

Republicans: Wah! We hate you! We'll spend the next 6 years trying to get this game thrown out!

Obama: Good luck with that.

So basically because Obama did not cave to Republicans and let heathcare expansion die in Congress he wasn't willing to compromise? Fine, whatever.

As for out of the blue bringing up the KKK and pre-1960's racist Democrats... Hey, I have an idea, let's inject irrelevant racism into a discussion of modern day politics. Because, you know, that ALWAYS goes so well.

Yeah its about as pointless as trying to say a bill was bipartisan even though it got zero votes from one side of the aisle because some republicans 30 years ago would have supported it or, or a republican governor from one of the most liberal states tried something similar.

Heh. I never said Obamacare was bipartisan. But let's pretend I did. Here is what you are justifying...

Dramaman: Obamacare was bipartisan.

TheNick: Democrats used to be racists and lynched people!

Even if the first statement is false, which we know it is, and the second statement is true, which we know it is, you don't think that was a tad bit non sequitur and over the line?

[TheNick]

What is laughable is the idea that the Republicans didn't participate because Obama didn't compromise enough. Here is basically what happened....

Democrats and Republicans stand at opposite ends of a football field.

Obama: Let's walk to the 50 yard line and meet the Republicans where they last passed healthcare reform just two years ago in Massachusetts.

Lol...my you have a warped sense of reality.  You keep drawing back to the same point for some reason that some republicans in mass passed a bill, so clearly all republicans supported it 100%

Beyond that, it started more like UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!  Oh wait...not even enough democrats support that.

PUBLIC OPTION!  Oh wait, not even enough dems support that.

He didn't start on the 50 year line, he started so far out the back of his end zone he was up in the bleachers somewhere and his own party wouldn't even support him lol.  So effectively his great "compromise" was hey guys, I'm on the 90 yard line, why don't you come down here and meet with me.

And it ends with...

https://youtu.be/KoE1R-xH5To

Oh wait...you mean...people didn't even have enough time to read this bill before it was passed?  Yeah...compromise...lol....

[TheNick]

Obama: C'mon guys. The people elected me president. Elections have meaning. How much farther are you asking for?

I remember shortly after he was elected he basically said "At the end of the day, remember who won."   Yeah...that's a great thing to say from someone so open to compromise lol.

And shortly after his refusal to offer meaningful compromise or be bipartisan his party got punished in the next mid term and still have a heck of a lot less seats than when he took office.

As for out of the blue bringing up the KKK and pre-1960's racist Democrats... Hey, I have an idea, let's inject irrelevant racism into a discussion of modern day politics. Because, you know, that ALWAYS goes so well.

Yeah its about as pointless as trying to say a bill was bipartisan even though it got zero votes from one side of the aisle because some republicans 30 years ago would have supported it or, or a republican governor from one of the most liberal states tried something similar.

Heh. I never said Obamacare was bipartisan. But let's pretend I did. Here is what you are justifying...

Dramaman: Obamacare was bipartisan.

TheNick: Democrats used to be racists and lynched people!

Even if the first statement is false, which we know it is, and the second statement is true, which we know it is, you don't think that was a tad bit non sequitur and over the line?

No Sir...I'm saying you claiming Obamacare is a republican idea because Mitt Romney passed similar legislation in Mass. is the same as saying racism is an idea of the democrat party because democrats were originally the party of the KKK.  Just because at some point in time some members of a party may have supported an idea doesn't make it a permanent platform piece of that a majority of the party is behind indefinitely.

Look here's some pro gun democrats.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/second-amendment/8-surprisingly-pro-gun-democrats/

Does it mean I can turn around and claim its an idea of the democrat party to expand our gun rights even though the bulk of them don't support that?  That is what you keep trying to do, and its just silly.

[dramaman]

What is laughable is the idea that the Republicans didn't participate because Obama didn't compromise enough. Here is basically what happened....

Democrats and Republicans stand at opposite ends of a football field.

Obama: Let's walk to the 50 yard line and meet the Republicans where they last passed healthcare reform just two years ago in Massachusetts.

Lol...my you have a warped sense of reality.  You keep drawing back to the same point for some reason that some republicans in mass passed a bill, so clearly all republicans supported it 100%

Of course 100% of Republicans wouldn't support it and nobody assumed that 100% of Republicans would support ANY type of healthcare reform. That's a strawman claim to suggest otherwise. What was assumed, however was that a number of Republicans would be open to working with a plan that WAS the brainchild of the copnservative Heritage Foundation and championed by none other than Republican conservative icon Newt Gingrich and the ONLY heathcare reform that Republicans ever supported that was passed at the state level that came EVEN CLOSE to expanding healthcare to the uninsured. In retrospect, it seems mighty silly to think that some Republicans might actually be reasonable. Reason left the Republican party years ago, about the same time it came down with Obama Derangement Syndrome. Obama's only fault was in underestimating just how much the Republicans were willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater for the sake of obstruction.

He didn't start on the 50 year line, he started so far out the back of his end zone he was up in the bleachers somewhere and his own party wouldn't even support him lol.  So effectively his great "compromise" was hey guys, I'm on the 90 yard line, why don't you come down here and meet with me.

So what I'm hearing you say is that the Republicans were so far gone that even their own originally conceived market based insurance oriented expansion of health care was so unacceptable when proposed by Democrats that it only amounted to 10% of what they might accept. You pretty much make my case that no effective solution that the Democrats could propose would have EVER been acceptable to them. To use your 90 yard example, the Democrats stepped 10 yards toward the Republicans and the Republicans proceeded to step 10 yards back.

https://youtu.be/KoE1R-xH5To

Oh wait...you mean...people didn't even have enough time to read this bill before it was passed?  Yeah...compromise...lol....

If that makes you feel better. Enjoy. Passing legislation has long been compared to sausage making and if that was what it took to expand insurance coverage to millions, fine by me. I'd do it again in a heartbeat over doing nothing, except I wouldn't have wasted any time trying to work with the Republicans as they obviously weren't interested in any serious reform. If Obama and Pelosi had done the kind of 'compromising' that you seem to have wanted, nothing would have changed. Millions of people would be without insurance waiting for the next medical disaster to strike. That might be okay with you, but not with me.

[dramaman]

As for out of the blue bringing up the KKK and pre-1960's racist Democrats... Hey, I have an idea, let's inject irrelevant racism into a discussion of modern day politics. Because, you know, that ALWAYS goes so well.

Yeah its about as pointless as trying to say a bill was bipartisan even though it got zero votes from one side of the aisle because some republicans 30 years ago would have supported it or, or a republican governor from one of the most liberal states tried something similar.

Heh. I never said Obamacare was bipartisan. But let's pretend I did. Here is what you are justifying...

Dramaman: Obamacare was bipartisan.

TheNick: Democrats used to be racists and lynched people!

Even if the first statement is false, which we know it is, and the second statement is true, which we know it is, you don't think that was a tad bit non sequitur and over the line?

No Sir...I'm saying you claiming Obamacare is a republican idea because Mitt Romney passed similar legislation in Mass. is the same as saying racism is an idea of the democrat party because democrats were originally the party of the KKK.  Just because at some point in time some members of a party may have supported an idea doesn't make it a permanent platform piece of that a majority of the party is behind indefinitely.

Look here's some pro gun democrats.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/second-amendment/8-surprisingly-pro-gun-democrats/

Does it mean I can turn around and claim its an idea of the democrat party to expand our gun rights even though the bulk of them don't support that?  That is what you keep trying to do, and its just silly.

Sigh. Its a matter of manners. When discussing an issue that has nothing to do with racism, injecting racism into the argument is not only pointless, but also rude and risks blowing up the whole discussion. You've demonstrated that you can argue your point without resorting to such crude artifices. There is no justification for it. It's rude and wrong and just don't do it.

[Jeremy E.]

This is the funniest thing I've read all week so I thought I'd share so everyone else can enjoy it too

[Bateaux]

I'm happy and proud to belong to the MMM group.  Nearly 85% identify as other than politically conservative.  We are truely conservative, we hate waste and strive for efficiency and fairness.  We have above average net worth and savings rates.  We are independant and self motivated.  We hate debt.  Yet, 85 percent of us do not identify as conservative politically. I think you guys are awesome.

[MDM]

This is the funniest thing I've read all week so I thought I'd share so everyone else can enjoy it too

Reminds me of the geographically-challenged Atlanta Olympics sales agent,

New Mexico, old Mexico -- it doesn't matter. You still have to go through your country's Olympic Committee.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1696&dat=19960229&id=dPoeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GUgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6737,2873667&hl=en

[nereo]

I'm happy and proud to belong to the MMM group.  Nearly 85% identify as other than politically conservative.  We are truely conservative, we hate waste and strive for efficiency and fairness.  We have above average net worth and savings rates.  We are independant and self motivated.  We hate debt.  Yet, 85 percent of us do not identify as conservative politically. I think you guys are awesome.

Not to derail this thread even further, but I've often been uncomfortable with the "conservative" label, especially when it comes to politics.
Conservative, from the verb "conserve" - to protect something from harm or destruction.
It's odd that a self-identified "conservative" individual is often at odds with a self-identified "conservationist", despite the similarity of the two terms.  I also see both sides wanting to shift, sometimes radically, the way our country functions.

[TheNick]

So what I'm hearing you say is that the Republicans were so far gone that even their own originally conceived market based insurance oriented expansion of health care was so unacceptable when proposed by Democrats that it only amounted to 10% of what they might accept.

I'm just going to ignore this part because I've already demonstrated repeatedly that its faulty logic making this claim.

You pretty much make my case that no effective solution that the Democrats could propose would have EVER been acceptable to them. To use your 90 yard example, the Democrats stepped 10 yards toward the Republicans and the Republicans proceeded to step 10 yards back.

The democrats all wouldn't even get on board with a single payer system or a public option...it wasn't just the republicans that blocked those things.  The far left dropped those ideas because their own party couldn't even get fully behind them.  Backing off of those ideas wasn't concessions to republicans lol.

Sigh. Its a matter of manners. When discussing an issue that has nothing to do with racism, injecting racism into the argument is not only pointless, but also rude and risks blowing up the whole discussion. You've demonstrated that you can argue your point without resorting to such crude artifices. There is no justification for it. It's rude and wrong and just don't do it.

There is nothing wrong with discussing things or using facts as examples...its not like I'm dropping racial slurs or saying anything crude...just talking about historical facts.

[dramaman]

So what I'm hearing you say is that the Republicans were so far gone that even their own originally conceived market based insurance oriented expansion of health care was so unacceptable when proposed by Democrats that it only amounted to 10% of what they might accept.

I'm just going to ignore this part because I've already demonstrated repeatedly that its faulty logic making this claim.

You have definitely obfuscated, I'll give you that. Nothing you've written disproves that Obamacare was built upon a foundation of recent Republican ideas and proposals that as recent as two years earlier were celebrated by many (many, not 100%, not all, but many) Republicans as a success story. Hell, their 2012 Presidential candidate continued to say it was a success even while running against Obama and Obamacare.

You pretty much make my case that no effective solution that the Democrats could propose would have EVER been acceptable to them. To use your 90 yard example, the Democrats stepped 10 yards toward the Republicans and the Republicans proceeded to step 10 yards back.

The democrats all wouldn't even get on board with a single payer system or a public option...it wasn't just the republicans that blocked those things.  The far left dropped those ideas because their own party couldn't even get fully behind them.  Backing off of those ideas wasn't concessions to republicans lol.

LOL, in an earlier post, even you admitted that the Democrats walked 10 yards towards the Republicans. As it turned out the only concession that Republicans would even accept was total capitulation. Democrats tried to engage with Republicans in the senate, but eventually it became clear that McConnell had given marching orders to not agree to anything. How the hell do you engage with a party that refuses to engage? Republicans proved that they would accept no compromise. They didn't care of millions were left without affordable healthcare if they could possibly score some political points. Therefore I don't have any sympathy for anyone who whines about how the Democrats weren't willing to compromise. Those claims are ignorant at best, deceitful, calculated revisionism at worst.

Sigh. Its a matter of manners. When discussing an issue that has nothing to do with racism, injecting racism into the argument is not only pointless, but also rude and risks blowing up the whole discussion. You've demonstrated that you can argue your point without resorting to such crude artifices. There is no justification for it. It's rude and wrong and just don't do it.

There is nothing wrong with discussing things or using facts as examples...its not like I'm dropping racial slurs or saying anything crude...just talking about historical facts.

Well, I've tried to be subtle and humorous and have tried to be polite and straight forward. Now I'm just going to be blunt. Whether you admit it or not, what you wrote was race shaming.  Bringing up the fact that (over 50 years ago) the Democrats used to be a party that included racists who lynched people is like suddenly bringing up the fact that somebody's ancestor was a slaveowner. Sure you can say its historically true and claim it is only an example, but it's a totally dick move to score some cheap points. Honestly, did you want to turn this thread into a shouting match about which party is more racist? I have to wonder because that is totally where things could have gone had I engaged at that level.

I remember listening to Al Franken doing an Air America interview with a fellow from National Review several years ago. Obviously the two guys come from completely opposite ends of the political spectrum. To make a point about how wrong NR has been over the years, Franken goes and brings up the fact that William F. Buckley was against civil rights back in the 50's and 60's. Franken's point was factually true and in the intervening years, most of society has come to agree that opposing civil rights was wrong. But whether intentional or not, this had the defacto effect of calling Buckley a past racist. It also left out everything Buckley had written and said in the intervening years. Most of all it was just a dick move on Franken's part. He wanted to score some easy cheap points by making NR's founder look bad. The effect, however, was to make Franken (who I otherwise liked) look like a socially inept jerk and brought the interview to a complete halt, as the NR fellow simply got up walked away, refusing to engage.

[2lazy2retire]

-Hillary: No one on either stage has the insider foreign policy knowledge that she has.

Insider foreign policy knowledge gleaned from years of failure to achieve ends good for the United States.

Let's talk successes.

Fixed that
Iran US is funding insurgencies which have direct control over parts of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Their leaders still regularly call out the United StatesIran for special enmity. There is no reason to believe that they are trustworthy or that they are complying with what they agreed to.

Okay.

As Sec of State Clinton:

1. helped secure the crippling sanctions (not just the U.S., but also getting cooperation from Russia, the E.U., etc) on Iran that brought them to the negotiating table

Iran is funding insurgencies which have direct control over parts of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Their leaders still regularly call out the United States for special enmity. There is no reason to believe that they are trustworthy or that they are complying with what they agreed to.

Sanctions are a cruel method of extracting compliance from other countries.

2. helpeded secure the new START treaty with Russia

OK. Overall relations with Russia haven't been great, but alright.

3. negotiated a cease fire in Gaza in 2012 that halted Hamas firing rockets into Israel and averting all out war

Stabbings have been substituted for rockets. A fleeting success.

4. laid the groundwork for normalization of relations with Cuba encouraging Obama to lift the embargo

I am all in favor of lifting the embargo.

5. was a tireless ambassador for U.S. relations and global women's rights traveling to over 100 countries during her tenure

U.S. relations with other nations have not substantively improved during the current administration.

Let's talk failures!

1. Clinton helped the United States join in the complete destruction of the Libyan state, with no useful plan for what came next. Libya is now divided between Islamists, a wanna-be dictator, and the Islamic State. The participation of the United States was illegal, constituting a violation of the War Powers Act with the embarrassing figleaf of "kinetic military action." Clinton and the administration did not have the courage to describe destroying a country with airstrikes as "war".
2. Afghanistan is still in awful shape.
3. A US Ambassador was murdered while she was Secretary of State. There's probably nothing she could have done to avoid that, other than not destroying Libya in the first place, but at that point it was done. The initial public response focused on the arrest of an amateur filmmaker.
4. The growth and success of the Islamic State came as a complete surprise to the US and our allies. Clinton was Secretary of State while its progenitor, Jabhat al-Nusra, was capturing territory in Syria.
5. She violated the law by keeping a private, unsecure email server at her private residence. There is no valid excuse or justification for this.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot:
6-9999: She voted to invade Iraq.

Fixed that
Iran US is funding insurgencies which have direct control over parts of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Their leaders still regularly call out the United States Iran for special enmity. There is no reason to believe that they are trustworthy or that they are complying with what they agreed to.

[hoping2retire35]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572

relevant article

[Kris]

Here's a legitimate criticism of Trump (one more, that is):

A German center-right newspaper is basically portraying him as someone who will burn down the United States.  The title means "insanity."  And you know, the Germans know from insane leadership.

Whoever is the democratic nominee, I sure hope that he or she will be able to convince Republican voters that Donald Trump is an incredibly large threat to us in terms of foreign relations.  He risks our relationships with our ALLIES, for God's sake.

[yuka]

Well, it seems we can rejoice that the electorate are slowly making their way back in the direction of reason! Cruz took first, and Trump narrowly beat Rubio for second. Also, a shout-out to Paul for 5th place, 1 delegate, 5%, and beating Jeb!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/primary-caucus-results/iowa (yeah, I quoted Fox, because I click on the big thing on top when Google feeds me my answers)

On another note, I still don't understand why some people are so repulsed by Cruz. I went along with the general wisdom of Reddit (pardon the oxymoron) that Cruz was insane, but on watching plenty of videos I just didn't see it. He seemed ruthless and uncompromising, but well-reasoned and articulate. Maybe people don't like that he has nothing but enemies, but the thought of nothing getting done doesn't bother me at all.

[marty998]

I don't know whether to be relieved, or scared... I mean..... the Don still came second so he's still effectively in the race...

[brett2k07]

Here's a legitimate criticism of Trump (one more, that is):

A German center-right newspaper is basically portraying him as someone who will burn down the United States.  The title means "insanity."  And you know, the Germans know from insane leadership.

Whoever is the democratic nominee, I sure hope that he or she will be able to convince Republican voters that Donald Trump is an incredibly large threat to us in terms of foreign relations.  He risks our relationships with our ALLIES, for God's sake.

As a registered Republican, I will not vote for Trump. I will write-in a candidate instead. I don't care if he's the nominee and I don't care that I'll be splitting the vote. As much as I would hate to see a socialist and *shudder* Hillary as President, I'm not compromising my values and voting for a candidate that I truly think will be terrible for the country. Unfortunately many of my fellow party members don't feel the same way. I hear all of the time "we have to win." Well, if winning is all you care about, then vote for Rubio. The general election polls have him consistently beating Hillary and Sanders by a large margin. Those same polls consistently say that Trump loses against Hillary.

I don't understand the appeal of Trump. On September 27th (a little over four months ago) he did an interview where he said he supports a single-payer healthcare system. No Republican I've talked to in the past 8 years have said "You know, Obamacare is really great! We should take it to the next level and eliminate private healthcare altogether!" That alone should make every Republican flock away from him.

All of that being said, I'm not so sure Hillary will be in the race by November given what's going on with this e-mail thing. Everything I've read (including MSNBC) have said their sources in the FBI are indicating the investigation is much deeper than the American public knows and that the FBI is most likely going to recommend an indictment be brought against her. That's where things get shady for me. If an indictment goes to Ms. Lynch, I have virtually zero confidence they'll actually bring charges against her. It wouldn't surprise me if they were to delay as long as they can in an effort to protect their party's chances in November. A conservative who doesn't trust the government...surprise, surprise.