There's no more reason to look for blame for the existence of Trump than there is for looking for blame to explain the existence of Sanders or Clinton. I'd vote for Trump over any Democrat. In truth, I see the existence of Sanders as better evidence of the sorry state of affairs than the existence of Trump. — Hanover

What sorry state of affairs would those be? The fact you don't view the rise of Trump as a problem and that you'd just cast a party-line vote for whatever nutjob the GOP coughs up says volumes about you and the fact that people just pull the lever for whatever their party is. And the fact that you can't see that Sanders and Clinton are infinitely more qualified for the presidency than Trump would be speaks volumes about you as well.

(I also love that you would buy into the fact that the woes of lower-middle income whites who favor Trump has anything to do with Obama.)

The Republican party has moved so far to the right that it is incapable of winning a general election. — Thorongil

Apparently you weren't paying attention to politics from 2000-2008...

You mean when the demographics were very different from what they are now?

I'd vote for Trump over any Democrat. — Hanover

I was flabbergasted when I read that.

I disagree with Sanders on much more than I disagree with Trump, so that's why I'd vote for Trump if I had to choose between those two. — Hanover

You did actually say any Democrat; not just Sanders - which is even more shocking. And that is precisely what BC addressed in his comment to which you replied with the quote above.

I don't agree with your reasoning, either. I think that even just a few of Trump's comments, given their extremity, unreasonableness, and discriminatory nature - in spite of the rest of his views - make him much worse than most Democrats, including Sanders.

How so? Because there are a few more Hispanics in the country? What of it? (The demographics weren't "very different", whatever it is you're referring to.)

Different enough across the board to ensure Democratic control of the White House a decade or more after which time you speak.

Again, not totally sure what you're referring to. "Across the board"? In what demographics? There are more Hispanics, but even that factor may be overblown, as there has lately been net negative immigration from Mexico in the last few years.

Did you live in a box that year? This was widely reported. Go do a Google search to confirm what I'm saying. Like this random article: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-campaign-diversity-new-idUSBRE8A70QK20121108

It's not hard to comprehend. The older, white, middle class Republican vote is slowly shrinking and the vote of basically everyone else is increasing or staying steady (women, LGBT, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Arabs, young people, etc).

And by the way, all those Hispanics who have immigrated to the US have children once they come here (shocking I know), and they have far more children than the US average.

I was flabbergasted when I read that. — Sapientia

To be fair to @Hanover, completely selfish relatively rich people interested in nothing but how much tax they have to pay have plenty to gain from a Trump presidency and plenty to lose from a Sanders one. ;)

.

First the demographics were "very different," and now you cite an article saying that the Republican group is "slowly-shrinking." I'm well aware that the demographics of the country are not the same as they were in 2000, but they're not that different. Obama and McCain were mostly neck-and-neck until the financial collapse, so Obama's win may have had as much to do with incumbent party fatigue and Main Street's anger against Wall Street than anything to do with diversity, especially given that Republican-controlled state legislatures have thrown up roadblocks to voting in some minority communities.

I'm also aware that Hispanic people have larger families, but the fact remains that immigration from Mexico has been negative in recent years.

You did actually say any Democrat; not just Sanders - which is even more shocking. And that is precisely what BC addressed in his comment to which you replied with the quote above. — Sapientia

Well, ok, not any Democrat. I suppose if you found me a conservative southern Democrat (like Zell Miller), then I'd vote for Zell even though he's really old now. At his finest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXSQ5BX6YXg.

But to the question of Trump vs. Sanders, it'd be Trump without question. Mr. Magoo or Sanders, it'd be Mr. Magoo.

To be fair to Hanover, completely selfish relatively rich people interested in nothing but how much tax they have to pay have plenty to gain from a Trump presidency and plenty to lose from a Sanders one. ;) — Baden

And yet many of his supporters are blue collar Democrats (and Republicans). This old "everyone just votes for self interest" just isn't true. If it were, no wealthy people would vote for Sanders, but they do. People are driven by ideology more than you suggest.

Oh, I know, I was just trying to provoke you. I'll have to try harder next time. Of course people vote against their self-interest otherwise Sanders would cakewalk the nomination and the presidency.

Well, ok, not any Democrat. I suppose if you found me a conservative southern Democrat (like Zell Miller), then I'd vote for Zell even though he's really old now.

But to the question of Trump vs. Sanders, it'd be Trump without question. Mr. Magoo or Sanders, it'd be Mr. Magoo. — Hanover

So, does that mean that you think that Trump can be trusted to govern the U.S.A. better than Sanders? Because unless Sanders has said crazier and/or more morally repugnant things than Trump, I trust Sanders over Trump.

What about Clinton? Are we all expecting Sanders to win over her?

I'll gladly feed that narrative.

What about Clinton? Are we all expecting Sanders to win over her? — Michael

Clinton's a man, and he isn't running for president. So, yes.

Hillary...

Or was that a joke? Forgive me for being dense if it was.

Hillary...

Or was that a joke? — Michael

Yes, and don't call me Hilary.

I'd vote for Trump over Mr. Magoo and Mr. Magoo over Hillary and Trump over Hillary.

So, does that mean that you think that Trump can be trusted to govern the U.S.A. better than Sanders? Because unless Sanders has said crazier and/or more morally repugnant things than Trump, I trust Sanders over Trump. — Sapientia

I trust that Trump will make better decisions than Sanders, not because either are truly crazy. I just disagree with Sanders on just about everything.

Trump is a genius of sorts. He can say "I'll make the Mexicans build their own wall" and then he'll get billions of dollars in free advertising from CNN and MSNBC when they express their outrage. Meanwhile, the average guy thinks to himself, "yeah, they should pay for their own damn wall" and then he gets more votes. How a real estate investor becomes a celebrity and is able to appeal to the common man is an amazing feat.

Great risks with completely unpredictable results is what makes America great I tell you! Come on over and spin the wheel, see what happens.

Oh, I know, I was just trying to provoke you. — Baden

Say crude things about your mom. That really pisses me off.

I trust that Trump will make better decisions than Sanders, not because either are truly crazy. I just disagree with Sanders on just about everything. — Hanover

Like the goal of creating a fairer society by, for example, targeting the super rich? Trump is a fat cat that will prioritise the interests of other fat cats if he can get away with it, and he will hinder progress towards such a goal. He is also someone who takes advantage of prejudice, and if that were reflected in policy, then it would have serious detrimental consequences.

Trump is a genius of sorts. — Hanover

The evil sort.

Great risks with completely unpredictable results is what makes America great I tell you! Come on over and spin the wheel, see what happens. — Hanover

I'd rather not gamble with such high stakes, given the odds. Over here, at the last general election, the pollsters predicated that it was pretty much neck-and-neck, and that the likely result would be a hung parliament. What happened? Unfortunately, a Conservative landslide, with David 'pig fucker' Cameron securing another term as Prime Minister.

Trump is too volatile, too 'full of shit', too much a comedian to know what exactly he would do as president. Most of the other candidates, R and D, are pretty predictable. Their predictability is what makes either Democrat a better choice than whoever the Republicans come up with. Why? Because we are likely to get another conservative congress led by Roll'm Back Reactionaries who want to dismantle just about everything progressive since FDR. With an ally in the White house, they would be an unmitigated disaster for the country.

I don't like Hillary, don't like this business of little dynasties like the Bush and Clinton one, and if Hillary was as good a candidate as Obama in 2008, her shelf life hasn't aged well. Still, she has enough progressivity to be an effective plug in the bowels of bad legislation.

I like Bernie Sanders most. Sanders, as a socialist Jew in the White House, might be even scarier to conservatives than a progressive black Muslim born in Kenya serving as POTUS. Sanders might drive Republicans mad. They might all go crazy and run into the Potomac River and drown. At any rate, Sanders would be as effective a plug in the rectum of Republican Policy as Clinton. The conservatives would need a collective colostomy.

It is likely that with either Democrat--or if Jesus Christ were elected for that matter--that gridlock will continue -- which is better than the Republicans having a plug free rectum and dumping their whole program on us.

Like the goal of creating a fairer society by, for example, targeting the super rich? Trump is a fat cat that will prioritise the interests of other fat cats if he can get away with it, and he will hinder progress towards such a goal. He is also someone who takes advantage of prejudice, and if that were reflected in policy, then it would have serious detrimental consequences. — Sapientia

We have different definitions of fairness, with yours weighing toward equality and mine merit. That would be my guess if this discussion will follow all others I have had like it.

They're all fat cats, every last one of them, Dem or Republican. Ordinary folks do ordinary things, which doesn't include running for president.

Race baiting is hardly a Republican idea. Both sides play that card, and it's close kin, class warfare, gets played when people start vilifying the rich.

Unfortunately, a Conservative landslide, with David 'pig fucker' Cameron securing another term as Prime Minister. — Sapientia

If one can get elected with such an unfortunate middle name, then I suppose anyone can.

in the bowels of bad legislation — Bitter Crank

would be as effective a plug in the rectum of Republican Policy — Bitter Crank

would need a collective colostomy. — Bitter Crank

having a plug free rectum and dumping — Bitter Crank

In need of a good gastroenterologist?

We have different definitions of fairness, with yours weighing toward equality and mine merit. That would be my guess if this discussion will follow all others I have had like it. — Hanover

So, the super rich and the working class have merit proportional to their status and contribution to society? I don't think so. The super rich are overprivileged, and something ought to be done about that, e.g. redistribution of wealth, higher wages for those at the lower end of the scale, higher taxes for big businesses.

Yes, and don't call me Hilary. — Sapientia

Hilary is a man, and nobody called you Putnam.

So, the super rich and the working class have merit proportional to their status and contribution to society? I don't think so. The super rich are overprivileged, and something ought to be done about that, e.g. redistribution of wealth, higher wages for those at the lower end of the scale, higher taxes for big businesses. — Sapientia

Right, exactly what I thought you thought. You are arguing for equality, but I'm arguing for merit based wealth. To the extent you object that wealth has not been distributed based upon merit, I'll join in your objections. To the extent you simply point out that there is unequal distribution of wealth, I'd be concerned if there were not. I don't observe equal contributions, so I'd be alarmed if there were equal rewards.

Right, exactly what I thought you thought. You are arguing for equality, but I'm arguing for merit based wealth. To the extent you object that wealth has not been distributed based upon merit, I'll join in your objections. To the extent you simply point out that there is unequal distribution of wealth, I'd be concerned if there were not. I don't observe equal contributions, so I'd be alarmed if there were equal rewards. — Hanover

No, I'm not arguing for equality; I'm arguing for greater proportionality. The super wealthy have too high a proportion, and the working class have too low a proportion. I don't believe that any amount of merit warrants such vast and disproportionate wealth. There certainly aren't equal contributions. For example, some big names in business could contribute a fairer share of tax and pay their employees a living wage, rather than the legal minimum. Banks could stop paying out ridiculous bonuses to those at the very top - especially the ones which were bailed out with taxpayers money, and could do more to help small businesses and those in need of a loan. The big six energy companies could do more for their customers, as could Network Rail.