Essay talk:Why I'm voting for Trump (in my state's primary)

Out of curiosity, would you vote for Bernie if he had a viable chance? Or do you really feel Hilary is the best democratic choice? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If the Democratic nomination were still feasibly in play, I would vote with the Democrats this time, and would vote for Sanders. In Indiana, though, a vote for Sanders sends a message that no one will hear. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 22:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Trump will most likely win w/o your vote. I think Sanders can still drive Clinton to a covention but would lose unless she were indicted. He could still lose to a challenger but would have a better chance to win in that case. I think you can easily drive the Democratic Party to change by forcing a convention, though.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 23:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Does Indiana have open primaries? Maybe you could vote in both parties' primaries. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not that CT matters much but I still voted for Kasich, and if it does come down to Drumpf vs. the bitch I'm 100% guaranteed to vote for Jason Giambi. That way I am completely absolved of all responsibility no matter who wins. That out of the way, it's nice that I'm not the only one who can see through the Democratic Party and especially Sanders; it's exasperating trying to explain to other people in their mid-20s that there is no panacea and he's no exception, I guess it's cool or something to have the reading comprehension and critical thinking skills of a 4th grade student. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Pfft. If The Economist falls in line behind Clinton, then she's a damn good bitch. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@142 Yes, Indiana has an open primary.

@BNL Do people actually believe he is a panacea? I guess that isn't surprising but he is still quite tolerant towards militarism.

@FCP Did the Economist endorse her? If they did my response is something snarky about their prediction on the success of the Nordic model.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC) 01:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Granted these are far from the most politically astute people that age, but yes. Their view seems to be that he'll fix all the nations problems in 1 term; to use one example that they grossly oversimplify (Sanders' plan is a lot more detailed than they explain) making college free will immediately enable everyone to get rid of student loan debt and get high paying jobs from the getgo. Now I also know better than to claim my anecdotal experience is The Truth (and didn't express that well before), and that my sample is stilted, but they are the people with whom I'm in regular contact so it's frustrating nonetheless. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is unfortunate that they believe that he will forgive their loans because I haven't read anything that says he would do that.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 04:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Not an endorsement, but grudgingly supporting her. And "Nordic model"? Lol. Clinton definitely falls on that side of the spectrum. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 01:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The real hope is that the FBI comes through and that she gets indicted, since mere votes won't stop her at this stage. And frankly I can see her vs. Trump as a disaster for the Democrats. She is particularly vulnerable to the kind of theater Trump brings, in a way that Sanders emphatically is not. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Smerdis Well, like I said, she will most likely push out progressive Democrats and overwhelmingly lose the midterm in 2018.

@FCP How does she?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC) 02:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, Trump is Bill Clinton to the ⁿth degree, talking whatever bullshit voters want to hear. Clinton did after all rewrite the How to manual to get elected. Hillary is an old school Nixonian, a political junkie hated by all. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 03:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I can't take credit for it, and don't remember where I saw it first, but I've seen Clinton called "Nixon in drag". Thinking of Trump as Bill Clinton on steroids makes sense in a way as well. With Trump, on even numbered days he's saying all sorts of crazy plans like the wall in Mexico, and on odd numbered days he's the sanest man in the Republican tent. Ted Cruz says he's not a true conservative. That's a convincing endorsement. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I would vote for Cruz, if for no other reason than I really, really want to see an open convention and all the related drama. Hentropy (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

First, Smerdis of Tlön, let me say that you should vote for Bernie Sanders. Now.

Your vote for Donald Trump will come back to haunt you. I believe that he will be the next president of the United States, and for eight years. He will preside over an administration similar to Reagan's in competency and Bush Jr.'s in malevolence. America will move closer to fascism. The only positive result is that a genuine, liberal movement may grow in strength under the pressure. But voting for him is a stupid thing to do, and I would rather you vote for Cruz than for Trump. I believe Hillary has a better chance against Cruz than Trump, despite what the polling might say. If you're not going to vote for Bernie, vote for Cruz. It increases the likelihood of a contested convention and a Cruz candidacy, which increases the Democratic nominee's chances. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

So basically make a vote that will be completly inconsequential since there isnt a chance Bernie will win short of Hillary being hit by a bus. Good logic there. While i would not vote for trump in a million years, i see the logic behind this essay, and i cant deny that this essay has some valid points. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 04:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Like I said above, derailing Clinton into a brokered convention would force her or, at least, the Democratic Party to adopt some of his policies. Even assuming that she gets indicted before the convention I doubt that the Democrats will pick him as the nominee; they will most likely chose Biden as the nominee which would be similar to what they did in 1968.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 04:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Mathematically, it's far less likely that the Democrats will have a contested convention, because they only have two candidates. Even if Sanders carries Indiana and every other state from now till June, unless he wins by improbable margins Clinton will still be the likely winner. The Democrats have rigged it in her favor all along. Voting for Trump, on the other hand, increases the likelihood that he wins on the first round. The Republicans are then forced to accept him as the nominee.

And I'm well aware that one of the risks of voting for Trump is that Trump becomes president. And if the Democrats run such a tired and lackluster candidate that they can't even beat Trump, it will be nobody's fault but theirs. Another equally likely result of forcing Trump is that the Republicans split into two or more factions. This would at least guarantee Democratic dominance until one faction or another emerges as dominant to the Democrats' right. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 12:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

1) Forcing a candidate to "adopt" policies in order to get the nomination at a brokered convention is delusional. Policies at a brokered convention are ignored immediately after the convention ends, and the chances of any candidate winning following a brokered convention is very small based on recent history.

2) Three veteran California GOP operatives so desperately hate Trump so much that they're planning to send out voter guides telling Republicans whether to vote for Cruz or Kasich based on which is more likely to win within each of the 53 districts, from which individual delegates are selected.[1]. In other words, they would rather sink the party rather than have Trump nominated. Bongolian (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to do anything, vote for Cruz. He is more beatable in the general election, and means there is far less likelihood of a Republican taking the presidency. Vote for Cruz. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a strange election indeed; Sanders is no more a Democrat than Trump is a Republican. Either way, both parties are experiencing somewhat of a realignment and ideological reassessment. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 04:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Never even considered voting for Cruz. Trump is, if anything, much closer to the center than Cruz is. Cruz is a product of the days when Mitch McConnell and John Boehner were soft leftie sellouts. It may be that it will be easier for Clinton to defeat Cruz than Trump in the general election. Clinton is overcautious and vulnerable to the kind of theater Trump brings. Debates with Trump will be farces she can't win. But they will be fun to watch. And the election of Hillary Clinton as President can never be more than the next worst outcome. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillary absolutely needs Sanders as a VP pick, without him, she looses the under 30 crowd. Whatever happens, Hillary represents status quo, Republicans represent change. A reversal of roles. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 04:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

But Clinton is too arrogant to do that; I know she won't pick Warren to gain a double woman ticket because she would be a problematic progressive. I would rather have a Trump presidency since everyone from every political ideology, class, race, gender, etc will oppose him and he isn't politically savvy enough to get any of his major policies through; he will lose Congress in 2018 if he doesn't lose it in 2016 and the Republicans are fuarenteed to lose in 2020. If Clinton wins, I am convinced she will remove as many progressives from the legislature as possible by backing more corporate-friendly centrists which will lose her the Congress in 2018. If Dems lose the presidency in 2020 then the Republicans will have control of Congress during the census and will most likely be able to change 2 or 3 SCOTUS judges which will ruin everything for decades.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 05:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't see President Trump lasting more than a couple months until he pulls a Palin and resigns. Trump is likely to be daunted by the responsibilities of the job fairly quickly. Not all of them can be performed on camera. There will be situations in which he can do nothing that will burnish his brand. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding? He wouldn't resign. He'd be surprised at how little power he has, but he would never shy away from having that much power. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

About the video

The second to last or last attack ad in the video linked said:

"Life. Liberty. Religious Liberty. The 2nd Amendment. We're just one supreme court justice away from losing them all." The ad then goes on to discuss...abortion? I'm confused as to what's going on here. How does abortion affect religious liberty or the 2nd amendment? I'm not American fyi. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Religious Right in America has continually claimed that since having an abortion is against their beliefs then anyone having an abortion is violating their religious liberty. There have been several instances where privately owned religious hospitals have refused to allow abortion services without exception because they are against abortion. Luckily, AFAIK, none of these institutions have actually enforced their policy since it would be unconstitutional. The Second Amendment argument stems from the belief that they need to defend their religious liberty and protect the "unborn" so, therefore, they have a right to bear arms.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. They sound just as deluded as I feared. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

the idea of religious freedom gets you quite a far way in America when you are trying to strip people of their rights I am afraid, and with abortion I wouldn't be suprised if everyone in the religious right started singing "every sperm is sacred" in unison. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 11:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a reference to the Hobby Lobby case; God told the family that owns this national chain to start a business to employ people, provide a service, and feed themselves. The Supreme Court ruled under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Obama & Company cannot mandate the family owned business to provide crap that violates their religious beliefs. nobs^{Mr. Gorbachev Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 01:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If a Muslim owned buisness discriminated against the kuffar, could they be protected under this Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, why not? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting test case. Order a wedding cake for a gay marriage from a Muslim-owned bakery. Christians seem to be on the losing end of these cases, lately. Where's the ACLU when you need 'em? nobs^{Mr. Gorbachev Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 02:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

And a Charedi bakery right after that. I wanna watch my fanatical brethren squirm, it's lotsa fun.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC) 02:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I've read orthodox Jews and Salafis are quite similar, it's funny that they hate each other so much. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hell, the Jews and the Palestinians are practically identical. Both believe in thee same God who sent a savior to the world that is coming back one day during an apocalyptic series of events. Both claim the ancient right to own a holy piece of land, and both use violent tactics to intimidate the other side. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

who sent a savior to the world that is coming back one day during an apocalyptic series of events- Pbfreespace3 That Christian eschatology, not Jewish and AFAIK also not Islamic one.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 01:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 01:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

No, in Islam there is an anti-Christ figure known as the Dajjal. He comes as a false Mahdi and fools everyone, but Isa (Jesus) also returns along with the true Mahdi. Isa and the Mahdi are able to defeat the Dajjal, which ends the Last Days. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That's Shi'a Islam,isn't it? Sunnis believe "God is without partner", meaning he don't share power with no Holy Ghost or Jesus or nobody. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 01:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The "God is without partner" thing is, to my knowledge, about Allah not having a female consort, meaning Jesus can't be the biological son of God. It's also from the Qur'an, so it's not specific to any sect. The opposition to trinitarianism comes from the notion of tawhid, the oneness of God, which is central in Islam. While there are some differences in Islamic eschatology between some of the sects, the general outline as Aeonian gave it applies to most major sects, as far as I'm aware. Of course, as with Christianity, how much emphasis people put on all the end-day stuff can vary a lot from group to group and person to person. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)