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.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
I'd vote for Trump over any Democrat. — Hanover
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. — 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. ;) — Baden
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. — 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. — Hanover
Trump is a genius of sorts. — Hanover
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
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
If one can get elected with such an unfortunate middle name, then I suppose anyone can.Unfortunately, a Conservative landslide, with David 'pig fucker' Cameron securing another term as Prime Minister. — Sapientia
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
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
Yes, and don't call me Hilary. — 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.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. — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.