President Trump

[brimstoneSalad]

Please call if you can. Betsy Devos would be a very bad Secretary of Education.
Update - I just left another for Susan Collins! This is so cool! Also kind of intimidating (holy shit I'm calling Senators?!). But really cool.

I'm torn on these issues. Yes, she'll be bad at her job, but she'll also be bad at her job in the sense that she'll be less competent and face more resistance.
Would we rather see a competent, or incompetent, conservative in these positions? If she's not confirmed, then Trump will eventually nominate a more competent conservative who may be good at what he or she does, but may also be worse in the process by being more effective at doing harm.

[EquALLity]

Please call if you can. Betsy Devos would be a very bad Secretary of Education.
Update - I just left another for Susan Collins! This is so cool! Also kind of intimidating (holy shit I'm calling Senators?!). But really cool.

I'm torn on these issues. Yes, she'll be bad at her job, but she'll also be bad at her job in the sense that she'll be less competent and face more resistance.
Would we rather see a competent, or incompetent, conservative in these positions? If she's not confirmed, then Trump will eventually nominate a more competent conservative who may be good at what he or she does, but may also be worse in the process by being more effective at doing harm.

Interesting. That's why Elizabeth Warren is voting for Ben Carson - she thinks anyone else will be worse... That's an important question.

What would you say the solution is, then? Do nothing?

[brimstoneSalad]

What would you say the solution is, then? Do nothing?

I would let this ship sink itself. In terms of politics, focus on two and four years from now. And try to stop the democrat base from splitting and handing the next term to Trump. We need unity behind a reasonable moderate candidate.

[EquALLity]

What would you say the solution is, then? Do nothing?

I would let this ship sink itself. In terms of politics, focus on two and four years from now. And try to stop the democrat base from splitting and handing the next term to Trump. We need unity behind a reasonable moderate candidate.

I mean... just do nothing? I don't know... I mean, how can we just let it happen? She's horrible. Maybe he'll see that someone like her won't pass and he'll nominate a less radical person and one who isn't as blatantly corrupt.

Two or four years from right now? That's so far away. What about now?

I'm not sure if the democratic base is very split right now (in term of voters), and if it is, I'm not sure if that's really something I can help fix. How would I go about that?
And if you want the democrats to unify... You said you'd still support Donald Trump if the democrats nominate Bernie Sanders in 2020. That's not really unity.

[brimstoneSalad]

How would I go about that?

Help stop TYT and others on the fringe from slandering our best candidates.

And if you want the democrats to unify... You said you'd still support Donald Trump if the democrats nominate Bernie Sanders in 2020. That's not really unity.

We need a candidate who is better than Trump, not worse. Part of the job of unifying the party is bringing the fringe back to reality.

Or I guess you could try to fix Sanders.

[EquALLity]

How would I go about that?

Help stop TYT and others on the fringe from slandering our best candidates.

And if you want the democrats to unify... You said you'd still support Donald Trump if the democrats nominate Bernie Sanders in 2020. That's not really unity.

We need a candidate who is better than Trump, not worse. Part of the job of unifying the party is bringing the fringe back to reality.

Or I guess you could try to fix Sanders.

You realize I support TYT right?
I think they're one of the few news organizations that delves deeper into important issues and does real journalism.

Bernie is better than Trump. I don't understand, especially now that you see what he's doing towards Muslims, how you can say that Trump is better.

[brimstoneSalad]

You realize I support TYT right?
I think they're one of the few news organizations that delves deeper into important issues and does real journalism.

Then the best thing you can do is work at being more critical of TYT rather than just trusting what they say. They're the liberal equivalent of fox news; pure agenda, very little in the way of facts or sanity.

Otherwise... eight years of Trump left, I guess.

This is why I hate politics so much, people don't think rationally about it when rhetoric comes in. They just choose sides, it's like religion.

Bernie is better than Trump.

No, they're both terrible, just in different ways.
I have explained in the past why I think Sanders is worse.

Trump already did one good thing, and got criticized for it anyway. Of course he did a lot more bad things (in terms of numbers), but when there's no evidence based standard all it does is reveal bias and reinforce the political polarization.

especially now that you see what he's doing towards Muslims, how you can say that Trump is better.

Thousands of people have been inconvenienced, and several people have died. Meanwhile, he gave the go-ahead to a critical natural gas pipeline that will lessen our dependency on the more harmful oil and coal for power. I expect him to be as favorable to nuclear as Bush was too, maybe more, and then I'll have more good things to say about him to weigh against the bad.

He's a mixed bag of good and bad, and you probably haven't even thought about the good he's done -- that's the problem, this biased tunnel vision to politics. If you criticize the bad while congratulating the good, your words mean a lot more and it opens you up to more critical thinking than the assumption that everything he's doing is bad does.
Obama did some bad things too, but also a lot of good. Nobody is perfect -- neither perfectly good nor perfectly evil.

Trump will very likely do more bad than good, but he's also going to be less competent and face more resistance than Sanders would.

It's unfortunate that Hillary wasn't elected, but we have a chance at somebody better if liberals can overcome party dogma and anti-science extremism to rally behind somebody sensible. Based on your mindset to that end, though, I don't have any hope of that happening.

On that basis, If you and I can't agree on a candidate, I predict eight years of Trump, and probably eight more years of a Republican after him. We'll never overcome this, and the left will never unify against him. As much as I dislike Trump, I know I will never give in to liberal pseudoscience and damn the world. I'll support him if it comes down to him and Sanders (unless pigs fly and Sanders actually changes his mind on a couple critical issues).

[EquALLity]

Then the best thing you can do is work at being more critical of TYT rather than just trusting what they say. They're the liberal equivalent of fox news; pure agenda, very little in the way of facts or sanity.

Otherwise... eight years of Trump left, I guess.

This is why I hate politics so much, people don't think rationally about it when rhetoric comes in. They just choose sides, it's like religion.

I don't blindly believe what they say, and to say they are the liberal equivalent of Fox News is just wrong. They aren't. First of all, they don't present themselves as not having a certain political leaning. They acknowledge they are a progressive source of news. They also don't lie like Fox News does.

The reason Trump won this election is because he ran against Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders was destroying Trump in all of the polls. If we have eight years of Trump, it will probably be because the democrats nominate another candidate like Hillary Clinton.

No, they're both terrible, just in different ways.
I have explained in the past why I think Sanders is worse.

Trump already did one good thing, and got criticized for it anyway. Of course he did a lot more bad things (in terms of numbers), but when there's no evidence based standard all it does is reveal bias and reinforce the political polarization.

I know, but that was the past when you thought Trump wasn't going to be able to do these things, so it was ok if he was elected because he won't be able to hurt the country that much. But now we see what he's doing, which among his actions are ignoring the rulings of the courts and continuing with this Executive Order in which he discriminates against Muslims.

He did do one good thing IMO - destroy TPP. I posted about that somewhere and said it was good. I'm not completely one sided, it just happens that liberal positions tend to be more correct. I'm liberal because liberal ideas are usually right; I don't support liberal ideas because of the label liberal.

Thousands of people have been inconvenienced, and several people have died. Meanwhile, the gave the go-ahead to a critical natural gas pipeline that will lessen our dependency on the more harmful oil and coal for power.

Wait, several people have died? Already? He's ALREADY killed people? Has that been proven? O_O

Are you talking about DAPL?

He's a mixed bag of good and bad, and you probably haven't even thought about the good he's done -- that's the problem, this biased tunnel vision to politics. If you criticize the bad while congratulating the good, your words mean a lot more and it opens you up to more critical thinking rather than the assumption that everything he's doing is bad does.
Obama did some bad things too, but also a lot of good. Nobody is perfect -- neither perfectly good nor perfectly evil.

See, that's not true, and it's insulting to me - as if I don't think critically and just blindly say every tiny piece of Trump's administration is the worst thing ever.

Trump will very likely do more bad than good, but he's also going to be less competent and face more resistance than Sanders would.

It's unfortunate that Hillary wasn't elected, but we have a chance at somebody better if liberals can overcome party dogma and anti-science extremism to rally behind somebody sensible. Based on your mindset to that end, though, I don't have any hope of that happening.

Did you just say that my mindset gives you no hope about politics?
...This is quite passive aggressive.

On that basis, If you and I can't agree on a candidate, I predict eight years of Trump, and probably eight more years of a Republican after him. We'll never overcome this, and the left will never unify against him. As much as I dislike Trump, I know I will never give in to liberal pseudoscience and damn the world. I'll support him if it comes down to him and Sanders.

Thanks for the encouragement...

[brimstoneSalad]

First of all, they don't present themselves as not having a certain political leaning.

That may be a fair difference, but it's a minor point; I don't think anybody thinks fox isn't on the conservative end of the spectrum for a mainstream news network.

They also don't lie like Fox News does.

I disagree.

The reason Trump won this election is because he ran against Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders was destroying Trump in all of the polls. If we have eight years of Trump, it will probably be because the democrats nominate another candidate like Hillary Clinton.

Better more Trump than somebody like Sanders. I don't want to see a moratorium on our only realistic hope to fight climate change. That will kill more people than Trump can manage.

I know, but that was the past when you thought Trump wasn't going to be able to do these things, so it was ok if he was elected because he won't be able to hurt the country that much. But now we see what he's doing, which among his actions are ignoring the rulings of the courts and continuing with this Executive Order in which he discriminates against Muslims.

I still don't think he can do those things. Courts are already ruling against him. The courts are a check on executive power; when two orders are in conflict, the court order wins. Trump can keep making executive orders, but if the courts smash them nobody will follow them and he'll be a joke.

Unfortunately, there is a lag as we have seen. It takes a few days between the issuing of the executive order and for it to start working its way through the courts. It sounds like they're putting a rush on things, but you have to have standing to sue against it, which means it must have been issued and affect at least one person before it can be smashed (as far as I know).

Some people will fall into the gaps, but that's the way of things.
As a consequentialist, I push the fat man off the life boat to drown so five children can be saved instead.
It's terrible and tragic, but the greater good is more important than short term emotional reactions.

He did do one good thing IMO - destroy TPP.

That's debatable. It may have been flawed, but free trade is crucial to the developing world to develop and get out of poverty. It needed to be fixed, not destroyed.
That's another evil thing Sanders would have done, crushing free trade. This could harm billions of people.
But since this isn't a difference between Sanders and Trump, I haven't commented on it much in the argument of who is worse. They're both equally bad in that respect.

Wait, several people have died? Already? He's ALREADY killed people? Has that been proven? O_O

Yes, the mother of a man who served his country died because they wouldn't let them back into the country after visiting Iran. She was a U.S. resident with a green card, and she had a medical problem so she needed to return from their visit to family, but couldn't get back to the hospital in time.
That's what I remember, anyway. You can probably find it.

It's sad, it's tragic even, and it makes Trump look terrible. But I don't place infinite value on a life. It's very possible and I think overwhelmingly probable that more people's lives will be saved due to the climate change mitigation of his support of nuclear vs. Sanders opposition.

Are you talking about DAPL?

I didn't look into it that much, that one's oil rather than gas, so not as useful. It's still better to pipe it rather than burn fuel carrying it by rail, but the effect will be smaller. Will the difference save as many people as Trump has killed in the past few days? I'm not sure. Maybe.

See, that's not true, and it's insulting to me - as if I don't think critically and just blindly say every tiny piece of Trump's administration is the worst thing ever.

I guess the the thing he had in common with Sanders you mentioned (I don't remember that), but that's not necessarily even a good thing.
TPP probably needed amendment, as Hillary said, but it shouldn't have been crushed. Billions of people rely on the economic benefits of free trade with the developed world.

Did you just say that my mindset gives you no hope about politics?
...This is quite passive aggressive.

You've been negative about Booker.
We need enthusiasm to win an election. If liberals can't really get behind a candidate, the mindset of only grudging support isn't helpful. If half of them are wishing it was somebody like Sanders and dislike Booker for not being progressive or implying he's corrupt, Trump is going to keep winning.

Thanks for the encouragement...

The future looks kind of bleak from here. Extremist liberals are going to force me (and every other independent science-positive candidate who feels similarly) to support Trump, whom I despise. I'll feel terrible about it and it'll just keep going because we can't agree on and be behind a good science-based candidate.
You know Sanders has problems. I can't believe you would side with TYT in bashing Booker.

Based on that, no, I have no hope for the future of politics in the U.S.
If you can see your way to condemning TYT for bashing Booker like that, I could at least have some home that a mind can be changed, and that we can bridge this political fissure for the whole country.
It's not just you and I talking here. This is a model conversation which could occur millions of times over. If we can't figure this out, I don't expect anybody else to be able to either.