Since it seems to be coming down to character more than anything else ...

Which is worse when it comes to governing ... being absolutely corrupt or possibly misogynistic ? 

What is ironic about this whole thing is it seems Bill Clinton and Trump have a lot in common regarding their personal lives, Main difference is Clinton is a hypocrite with a double life because in his political, public persona he is actually somewhat of a feminist, Trump is just a straight up Misogynist.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
With the retreat into separate but equal, we are creating / recreating subdivisions and factions that all have their particular single focus or purpose.  That being said, in this world of binary choices, they eventually have to pick one of those offered to support / jump on their bandwagon.  Then work it backwards and put into play the guilt by association factor to deconstruct of the binary choices.

But how far do we take it ?  You can't acknowledge everybody just as you cannot disavow everyone.  

Extreme example ...

Cannibals.  While illegal, they exist.  Are they worth the time of day to even acknowledge their existence ?  But they have a problem with their diet.  Too boring, the same old boring white meat, day after day.  They are driven to find some variety.  How better to seek that end ?  Support open borders of course.  So they get together and have a meeting to choose who to support in the coming election.  The choice is clear.  So they decide to pick the candidate who dreams of open borders, cuz the other one wants to seal off the border and limit their food choices.

Now I ask, speaking of monsters, who wants the support of cannibals ?  Is it really necessary to disavow the cannibals, have we reached that point ?  With the gotcha mentality, yes.  So if you don't go out of your way to immediately disavow the cannibals, you are suddenly pro cannibal and unelectable.

I could do this with polygamists and make it really politically incorrect by dividing polygamists into two groups, Muslim and Mormon.  One is politically cool while the other is not.

If Roman Polanski supported Hillary, no big deal.  But if he supported Trump, well shit howdy, the howling would never end.

Take two aspirin ...  

I heard that Donald Trump got at least one new celebrity endorsement today, from Bill Cosby.

 Beaker wrote: 
Yes to all of this but my point, circuitously made by me if at all, is that the headline "Millions of people disagree with your political views. That doesn't make them moral monsters" is correct, but that that doesn't mean there are no moral monsters. If the moral monster du jour disagrees with you, and the candidates that monster supports don't take quick and decisive action to distance themselves from that monster and that monster's position, then it is not much of a leap to the conflation addressed by the headline that those candidates supporters are or agree with or also support moral monsters.

I hurt my brain. 

 Beaker wrote: 
Which decade do you suppose it will be when conservatives decide that relitigating old political battles that were lost long ago is a nonstarter politically?

From one of my favored writers, Joe Lansdale.

Why My East Texas Neighbors are Voting for Trump

Thing is, the support of Trump in Texas — and I speak specifically of my region, East Texas — goes beyond the smart and the not so smart, the educated and the uneducated. It is more a result of what I like to call the happily stupid; the ones who hold stupid views by choice, not due to lack of intelligence, but due to a kind of tribalism. Facts that interfere with their version of the world are there to be ignored. It’s like putting a hat on a pig and insisting the porker is your Uncle Frank, contrary to all other evidence.

Trump has provided a dark, dank hole into which these folks can dump whatever it is they’re mad about. Even contradictory views, since Trump frequently changes viewpoint in midsentence, can happily nest there, swelling and breeding like poison fungus.

Most of what Trump is selling shouldn’t convince a distracted 12-year-old, and certainly it’s hard to see how a conniving real estate tycoon represents the average person, but those are the people he has made the greatest inroads with. It certainly isn’t due to his sterling personality. He always seems like the mean little boy whose last fun moment was beating his pet hamster to death with a chair leg.

 kurtster wrote: 
Thanks for the butt-hutt/hurt clarification. I'll take your word that you didn't call me that. Someone did. It's really pointless now. I apologize for getting into a flame war with you and accusing you of being a shill. You have valid points about Trump, Clinton and the election that deserve my serious consideration. 

I'm also weary of the Clintons. I haven't seen Juanita Broaddrick's recent discussions of her claim that Bill raped her, but I've seen an older one and it put a chill in my spine. I tend to believe right off the bat women who claim rape , especially when they appear in emotional agony when talking about the incident as Juanita has. That video made me think, "Christ, was/is Bill a psychopath?" I'm also skeptical of their rapid accumulation of wealth since Bill left office: it looks like they cashed in many favors. 

I understand your desire to change or stop the status quo. But kurtster, the status quo will remain in very good condition even if Trump wins or Clinton goes to jail in her first term. The federal government (hell, most governments) is a thriving exchange or marketplace trading in power, money, influence and alliances. Voting in a "maverick" is like jailing street-level drug dealers: there may temporary change, but the demand and supply of the product aren't affected in the long-run. If Trump wins, it will take him a long time to figure out how Washington works and that he will never have powers like a king. Without party support and some concessions to the status-quo on his part (i.e. playing ball), Washington will isolate Trump and work around him. That's what happened to Carter. Bernie Sanders and his talk of revolution would also have been gently bundled off to a quiet corner. If you keep talking about revolution and smashing the marketplace after you've been elected, you can't get anything done in the marketplace. 

You have every right to demand change. I think that status quo can't continue: too many people are being left behind and without a political voice. A lot of people have made great money by turning the federal money spigot their way. This guy  for instance has written some great (and dense) pieces on how trade lawyers have captured trade deals for themselves and allies, in turn hurting US manufacturing.

Average voters like you and me have to hammer at our Congressmen and Senators about what we want them to do. Bill and Hillary are like other top-level politicians: they triangulate and alter their positions to suit popular opinion and gain political support. Bill likely didn't want to welfare reform legislation that was as strict as the bill he signed into law but he had to accommodate Republicans on some issues like giving welfare money to states in block grants (which let states spend the money on non-welfare matters). He signed DOMA to avoid the humiliation of having the GOP override his veto and to get its support on other matters.

You point to Hillary's Wikileaked stuff and it's possible that she's misled the public (I haven't read much about the leaked stuff) but like many politicians she says nice vague things about immigration to one group

"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."

and different (but also vague things) to another. (Did she also ask for puppies and rainbows in that speech?)

HRC is not the devil. She is a clumsy and greedy politician. Clinton needs public scrutiny and pressure to be honest and open. She will shift her positions to reach a working compromise. Bernie forced her to do it on healthcare and college education. A healthy GOP will rein her in and pull her to the right.  

Wrapping this up: I don't think Trump knows how to work with people in politics. Mitt Romney found out the hard way that being a successful CEO has little to do with being a successful governor but he got stuff done. OTOH Trump is accelerating the collapse of the GOP dramatically and is losing allies left and right. Trump wants to burn the house down...and then what?

 kurtster wrote: 
Oh, okay. Then the difference between fiction and actual assault.

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
I would bet that she would disagree with that.  Strongly disagree.

 kurtster wrote: 
A woman who doesn't understand all that "consent" nonsense.

 Rod wrote: 
No, not at all.  It just gives the never Trump repubs another excuse to bail on him.  They don't want to win anything and are willing to sacrifice the SCOTUS to screw the nation and keep their own little power niche.

FWIW, a woman sent that to me ... 

 kurtster wrote: 
Do you really think the reason women (and men) are outraged by Trump is because he used naughty words?

 kurtster wrote:
This is as intentionally obtuse as the "don't blame Hillary for Bill's behavior" meme.

Trump's behavior comes as no surprise to anyone. Is there a woman left who would trust Trump alone with her daughter? The people feigning outrage about this are the Republicans afraid to go down with his ship and suddenly awakening the last shreds of their of consciences. All the racism, the religious bigotry, the economic and civic illiteracy he has demonstrated was appalling of course, but not a deal breaker. Now that it's about white women they all clutch their pearls.

 oldviolin wrote: 
That's it. Does he have good ideas? He's too stumblebum to say them well.
He came off as a bully (repeated interruptions are not Presidential) and unable to show the amount of nuance that the office requires. Sure he could throw a zinger. Is that what we need?

If we talk about Trump without talking about Hillary, we see someone who's not ready for the job in any way. He might have good intentions, but he's not Presidential.
(Talking bad about Hillary is not a rejoinder to this observation) 

None of this will make any difference. Voting for Trump isn't a logical thing, so logic and discussion is a useless tool. His followers are emphatic, driven, religious. He insulted minorities, handicapped, women. He's never held public office of any kind. His investments have frequently gone bankrupt. And yet, there he stands, supported by many working class people who think he gives a shit about them. The debate is just a chance to see him insult Hillary.

 Steely_D wrote: 
Yes it was a good one.  I could go with the microphone timer.

But it was a real debate.  Maybe the first real POTUS debate I've ever seen and I've seen em all since Kennedy / Nixon.

There was real direct back and forth at length with both of em saying what they really wanted to say.  Never before has the choice or difference between two candidates been made so clear.

 oldviolin wrote: 
I know, right?

 Red_Dragon wrote: 

The projection is monumental.