$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 65.73

4,626 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
29.2% of Goal | 29 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
70 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: David Frum - Voting for Clinton to save the Republic rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: rsp_p3 [+] [View All]
Richard Keiser

Waunakee
Wisconsin
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Long-time conservative on why voting for HRC is the wisest choice for our country. I couldn't agree with him more.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/dont-gam...

3 
 Thumb up
0.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Yeah, saw that. I love how it says that the only pro-Trump arguments are just anti-Hillary... then proceeds to give a "pro-Hillary" argument that is virtually 100% anti-Trump. Personally, I find both arguments convincing, so I'll agree with both and vote against two candidates that don't belong in the White House.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Keiser

Waunakee
Wisconsin
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
fizzmore wrote:
Yeah, saw that. I love how it says that the only pro-Trump arguments are just anti-Hillary... then proceeds to give a "pro-Hillary" argument that is virtually 100% anti-Trump. Personally, I find both arguments convincing, so I'll agree with both and vote against two candidates that don't belong in the White House.


Christ on a Cross... the conservative RSPer argument has only been anti-Hillary. Their arguments are as empty as the candidate they support.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I think you're confusing "conservative" with "pro-Trump"
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Keiser

Waunakee
Wisconsin
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
fizzmore wrote:
I think you're confusing "conservative" with "pro-Trump"


You are correct on that...

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
mbmbmbmbmb
darthhugo wrote:
Long-time conservative on why voting for HRC is the wisest choice for our country. I couldn't agree with him more.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/dont-gam...

The people who voted for Trump in the primaries aren't going away. The Republicans have a huge problem to deal with and I've got no idea how they are going to manage to do it. We should also not forget that the #2 candidate for the Republicans this year was Ted Cruz who is just as divisive as Trump.
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Keiser

Waunakee
Wisconsin
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
darthhugo wrote:
Long-time conservative on why voting for HRC is the wisest choice for our country. I couldn't agree with him more.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/dont-gam...

The people who voted for Trump in the primaries aren't going away. The Republicans have a huge problem to deal with and I've got no idea how they are going to manage to do it. We should also not forget that the #2 candidate for the Republicans this year was Ted Cruz who is just as divisive as Trump.


Totally agree and a fascinating time to be alive. We are watching the destruction of a party that has stood intact, and has done an excellent job of keeping itself intact over all other things for a long, long time.

If the 2012 autopsy report didn't change anything from within, this campaign won't either. The party will find itself without members, as they splinter off into sub-sets. Most likely intellectual conservatives and crotch/stomach conservatives.

Furthermore, on the Democratic side, the younger demo will force the democratic party to become less of a Republican lite (thanks 9/11) and into something more interesting than HRC represents.

But comparatively, the conservative party is bleeding out from within, all the while it is chewing off its flesh to allow fresh infections to occur.

In some ways, I'm glad the Deplorables have outed themselves since 2010... it will be much easier to contain them (and choke them out, if need be) - as they will no longer be able to use the Republican party as their covering.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
I am sick of this shit about a "doomsday" if Trump/Clinton is elected. People pushing that nonsense are speaking through the lens of their ideology, not reality.

The US has survived and thrived through worst situations than a Trump or H. Clinton presidency. Grow some balls.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Keiser

Waunakee
Wisconsin
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
I am sick of this shit about a "doomsday" if Trump/Clinton is elected. People pushing that nonsense are speaking through the lens of their ideology, not reality.

The US has survived and thrived through worst situations than a Trump or H. Clinton presidency. Grow some balls.


So says the residents of Germany when the Chancellorship was handed to the Mustachioed SansBall

Don't kid yourself. Stable systems can go to shit in a heart-beat.

You look at a health adult - sure they're fine. No sense of impending doom. Next minute, they are on a slab after catastrophic organ failure brought on by an unseen parasite.

Its so American to think that we are greater than anything that EVAR existed, but the truth is that we are still young, have gotten lucky in the past, and can fall like the rest of them.

Trump would be the absolute worst fucking thing for this country, and going down this road is one you can't turn back from.

9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
mbmbmbmbmb
darthhugo wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
I am sick of this shit about a "doomsday" if Trump/Clinton is elected. People pushing that nonsense are speaking through the lens of their ideology, not reality.

The US has survived and thrived through worst situations than a Trump or H. Clinton presidency. Grow some balls.


So says the residents of Germany when the Chancellorship was handed to the Mustachioed SansBall

Don't kid yourself. Stable systems can go to shit in a heart-beat.

You look at a health adult - sure they're fine. No sense of impending doom. Next minute, they are on a slab after catastrophic organ failure brought on by an unseen parasite.

Its so American to think that we are greater than anything that EVAR existed, but the truth is that we are still young, have gotten lucky in the past, and can fall like the rest of them.

Trump would be the absolute worst fucking thing for this country, and going down this road is one you can't turn back from.

When a politician starts talking about how the system is rigged, how some other group is trying to take over the country, how we can make the country great again, then it is time to vote for whoever is running against them, without any doubt at all. That shit is all straight out of the fascism playbook and should make all their supporters run away as fast as they can.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
I am sick of this shit about a "doomsday" if Trump/Clinton is elected. People pushing that nonsense are speaking through the lens of their ideology, not reality.

The US has survived and thrived through worst situations than a Trump or H. Clinton presidency. Grow some balls.



I think the scenarios whereby we see Trump appointing himself dictator in chief are masturbatory hyperbole but, make no mistake, a Trump Presidency would be a complete disaster from which it would take decades to recover.

Just take his campaign and his, ahem, reality tv show career as a model for how he would govern. The various agencies and departments that comprise the executive branch would, at first, attempt to work with the man. But, as time passed, and Trump behaves like Trump, they would simply begin to ignore him and attempt to run themselves.

Trump, true to form, would have a revolving door of cabinet members where he would be appointing and firing them at whim. He would say one thing on one day, completely contradict it the next and not even acknowledge the contradiction. He would have no ability to create the impression of a coherent direction in which he sees the country moving.

None.

It would just be a constant stream of bullshit and nonsense. He would say whatever he imagines in that tiny little noggin of his would "play well" with his base.

As soon as the various agencies and departments of government began to realize that there is simply no dealing with the man they will, as noted, attempt to begin to runs themselves. But how can that possibly work? With no effective centralized authority to even attempt to coordinate their activities? Something that's difficult to accomplish with even the strongest and most effective politicians at the helm?

It would be chaos.

I doubt there would be any real danger of a Trumptatorship, or a nuclear Trumpocalypse simply because no one would take him seriously enough to support him. But the damage caused by a central government without any real or significant direction would be...tremendous. Yuge!
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
mbmbmbmbmb
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
I am sick of this shit about a "doomsday" if Trump/Clinton is elected. People pushing that nonsense are speaking through the lens of their ideology, not reality.

The US has survived and thrived through worst situations than a Trump or H. Clinton presidency. Grow some balls.



I think the scenarios whereby we see Trump appointing himself dictator in chief are masturbatory hyperbole but, make no mistake, a Trump Presidency would be a complete disaster from which it would take decades to recover.

Just take his campaign and his, ahem, reality tv show career as a model for how he would govern. The various agencies and departments that comprise the executive branch would, at first, attempt to work with the man. But, as time passed, and Trump behaves like Trump, they would simply begin to ignore him and attempt to run themselves.

Trump, true to form, would have a revolving door of cabinet members where he would be appointing and firing them at whim. He would say one thing on one day, completely contradict it the next and not even acknowledge the contradiction. He would have no ability to create the impression of a coherent direction in which he sees the country moving.

None.

It would just be a constant stream of bullshit and nonsense. He would say whatever he imagines in that tiny little noggin of his would "play well" with his base.

As soon as the various agencies and departments of government began to realize that there is simply no dealing with the man they will, as noted, attempt to begin to runs themselves. But how can that possibly work? With no effective centralized authority to even attempt to coordinate their activities? Something that's difficult to accomplish with even the strongest and most effective politicians at the helm?

It would be chaos.

I doubt there would be any real danger of a Trumptatorship, or a nuclear Trumpocalypse simply because no one would take him seriously enough to support him. But the damage caused by a central government without any real or significant direction would be...tremendous. Yuge!


Honestly I think that's a best case scenario.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
North Dakota
flag msg tools
Thanks for the rent-free space in your head. Would have been nice if you'd cleaned it up a bit before you rented it out, though.
badge
I control your mind.
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
I am sick of this shit about a "doomsday" if Trump/Clinton is elected. People pushing that nonsense are speaking through the lens of their ideology, not reality.

The US has survived and thrived through worst situations than a Trump or H. Clinton presidency. Grow some balls.


I listened to an interview with Frum last weekend, and he didn't sound any doomsday warnings at all. Certainly not pro-Clinton in any sense. He was extremely critical of her -- both Clintons -- and the way she's conducted herself and the State Department.

He never came off as pro-Trump, but he'd probably be considered "Reluctant Clinton." (And the piece he writes in the Atlantic confirms that.)

Never heard anything approaching the hysteria of the subject header.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BJ
United States
Eau Claire
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
You are full of poisonous refuse and insane foolishness.
badge
I had not supposed or expected your arrogant spirit to seek such a ridiculous and childish reason for lying; you should have better reasons.
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
I am sick of this shit about a "doomsday" if Trump/Clinton is elected. People pushing that nonsense are speaking through the lens of their ideology, not reality.

The US has survived and thrived through worst situations than a Trump or H. Clinton presidency. Grow some balls.


Casual misogyny.
6 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Keiser

Waunakee
Wisconsin
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
I am sick of this shit about a "doomsday" if Trump/Clinton is elected. People pushing that nonsense are speaking through the lens of their ideology, not reality.

The US has survived and thrived through worst situations than a Trump or H. Clinton presidency. Grow some balls.


I listened to an interview with Frum last weekend, and he didn't sound any doomsday warnings at all. Certainly not pro-Clinton in any sense. He was extremely critical of her -- both Clintons -- and the way she's conducted herself and the State Department.

He never came off as pro-Trump, but he'd probably be considered "Reluctant Clinton." (And the piece he writes in the Atlantic confirms that.)

Never heard anything approaching the hysteria of the subject header.


Oh, Drewber... that minimum wage job of yours must be preventing you from reading the link:

"Your hand may hesitate to put a mark beside the name, Hillary Clinton. You’re not doing it for her. The vote you cast is for the republic and the Constitution."

David Frum




5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Keiser

Waunakee
Wisconsin
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
I am sick of this shit about a "doomsday" if Trump/Clinton is elected. People pushing that nonsense are speaking through the lens of their ideology, not reality.

The US has survived and thrived through worst situations than a Trump or H. Clinton presidency. Grow some balls.


Casual misogyny.


In your case, medical advice.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
mbmbmbmbmb
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

I doubt there would be any real danger of a Trumptatorship, or a nuclear Trumpocalypse simply because no one would take him seriously enough to support him.


Pete I generally agree with your post. But the level of discretion given to an American president to use nuclear weapons is vast. Nixon's aids worried about that at the end, when he was drinking and paranoid.

Trump doesn't drink - but given his statements on using nuclear weapons, his apparent inability to understand the ramifications of using them, and his poor impulse control, color me worried.
11 
 Thumb up
0.27
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

I doubt there would be any real danger of a Trumptatorship, or a nuclear Trumpocalypse simply because no one would take him seriously enough to support him.


Pete I generally agree with your post. But the level of discretion given to an American president to use nuclear weapons is vast. Nixon's aids worried about that at the end, when he was drinking and paranoid.

Trump doesn't drink - but given his statements on using nuclear weapons, his apparent inability to understand the ramifications of using them, and his poor impulse control, color me worried.


I suspect there would be a point at which most of government would be actively conspiring against Trump being able to do anything other than spout his mouth off on national television. If no one is willing to carry out his orders he can't launch nukes. I suspect he would be given false codes at some point.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Keiser

Waunakee
Wisconsin
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

I doubt there would be any real danger of a Trumptatorship, or a nuclear Trumpocalypse simply because no one would take him seriously enough to support him.


Pete I generally agree with your post. But the level of discretion given to an American president to use nuclear weapons is vast. Nixon's aids worried about that at the end, when he was drinking and paranoid.

Trump doesn't drink - but given his statements on using nuclear weapons, his apparent inability to understand the ramifications of using them, and his poor impulse control, color me worried.


I suspect there would be a point at which most of government would be actively conspiring against Trump being able to do anything other than spout his mouth off on national television. If no one is willing to carry out his orders he can't launch nukes. I suspect he would be given false codes at some point.


Remember that military discipline and honor for CoC is almost unshakeable, so I really could envision a scenario where Trumpers would be allow to go from thought to action without much interference.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
And most of you confirmed my post.

Look, this is NOT a young nation or young government. The English and the Chinese have (rough) national boundaries that exceed the age of the US's government and borders. The English government is somewhat more mature than the US government, but if I recall, at the time of the Revolution, the English King still had clout. Other than that?

Germany was a collection of fiefdoms, dukedoms, and provinces. France was a monarch/imperium. Italy? See Germany. Russia was an imperium. Switzerland? Borders are older, government not so much. Sweden, Norway, et al? Kingdoms. Our fellow Western Hemisphere nation states were all colonies at the time of the Revolution.

There are limitations on the power of the chief executive, up to and including the nuclear option.

The US is a mature state. The problems that face Americans are trivial compared to the vast majority of the world. Take 1973 -- Vietnam was winding down, the Yom Kippur War brought the US and USSR to the brink of a nuclear exchange, the oil embargo, major inflation, the first economic slowdown since World War II, and the Nixon impeachment.

Get a grip, people, get a grip.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
darthhugo wrote:
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

I doubt there would be any real danger of a Trumptatorship, or a nuclear Trumpocalypse simply because no one would take him seriously enough to support him.


Pete I generally agree with your post. But the level of discretion given to an American president to use nuclear weapons is vast. Nixon's aids worried about that at the end, when he was drinking and paranoid.

Trump doesn't drink - but given his statements on using nuclear weapons, his apparent inability to understand the ramifications of using them, and his poor impulse control, color me worried.


I suspect there would be a point at which most of government would be actively conspiring against Trump being able to do anything other than spout his mouth off on national television. If no one is willing to carry out his orders he can't launch nukes. I suspect he would be given false codes at some point.


Remember that military discipline and honor for CoC is almost unshakeable, so I really could envision a scenario where Trumpers would be allow to go from thought to action without much interference.




The authorization for a nuclear strike doesn't go directly from the President to the guy at the silo or in a bomber.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

Quote:
Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.[2][3][4]



The Secretary of Defense could refuse to authorize, get fired and replaced by his alternate who could refuse, get fired...

Well, you get the point.

If the people around him universally think he's off his rocker he wouldn't be able to order a launch. He'd likely get himself impeached for trying to do so, though. So that would be nice.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:


Get a grip, people, get a grip.


Just because Trump couldn't single handedly annihilate the world doesn't mean he can't cause a serious amount of damage. The man is singularly ill equipped to govern.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:


Get a grip, people, get a grip.


Just because Trump couldn't single handedly annihilate the world doesn't mean he can't cause a serious amount of damage. The man is singularly ill equipped to govern.

So was Fillmore, Grant, and Taft. JFK wasn't good at all, but didn't last long enough. And given that the Dems will pick up a few Senate seats, they will return the GOP favor to Obama by filibustering any Trump SCOTUS nom.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:


Get a grip, people, get a grip.


Just because Trump couldn't single handedly annihilate the world doesn't mean he can't cause a serious amount of damage. The man is singularly ill equipped to govern.

So was Fillmore, Grant, and Taft. JFK wasn't good at all, but didn't last long enough. And given that the Dems will pick up a few Senate seats, they will return the GOP favor to Obama by filibustering any Trump SCOTUS nom.


I really don't buy that any of those folks were as aggressively idiotic as Trump. I'm not talking about a lack of political experience. I'm talking about willful stupidity, a mendacity that strikes to the core and a petulance that makes most toddlers seem serene.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
I am sick of this shit about a "doomsday" if Trump/Clinton is elected. People pushing that nonsense are speaking through the lens of their ideology, not reality.

The US has survived and thrived through worst situations than a Trump or H. Clinton presidency. Grow some balls.


Disagree.

Which candidate for president in US history is the equivalent to Trump?

It's hard to look past 1945 since the world didn't possess nuclear weapons or other similarly potent WMD's with existential implications. We were taken to the brink a couple of times, especially during Kennedys' administration. However, with zero exceptions, US Presidents have engaged in a policy of containment to contain nuclear proliferation. Trump ALONE has talked about abandoning that course and allowing other nations to develop such weapons including Saudi Arabia (which country is at least associated with state sponsored terrorism).

In addition, Trump has publicly advocated for the expansion of laws to sue the press for exercising it's right and duty under the first amendment. Which presidential candidate has both advocated nuclear expansion and suppressing the media?

Trump has called for reducing civil service protection so he could freely fire non partisan government employees. This would allow him to pack government jobs with loyalists. He has also indicated he would broadly remove large numbers of generals from there posts. Which presidential candidate has advocated liberalization of nuclear proliferation, suppression of the media, packing the government at all levels including the military with loyalists?

Trump has advocated both expansion of interrogation techniques viewed by many as torture along with executing suspected terrorists families.

Wonder what would happen if the Saudi's had nuclear weapons, perhaps loosely accounted for, and we started executing Saudi citizens for the suspected sins of their sons and daughters. Trump is hideously ignorant, simplistic and utterly lacking either the instincts for restraint or empathy about the use of violence to achieve his aims.
11 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.