tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post6832991021412246759..comments2024-03-18T19:39:32.100-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: 7-23-16 HodgepodgeGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-51514123736783860422016-07-25T11:49:32.952-06:002016-07-25T11:49:32.952-06:00Steve,
Oh, I have both noticed and include your r...Steve,<br /><br />Oh, I have both noticed and include your reasons for opposing Trump with my own.<br /><br />And yes, the behavior of many of his supporters concerns me.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-62060579708819505212016-07-25T09:29:57.306-06:002016-07-25T09:29:57.306-06:00My reasons for opposing Trump are somewhat differe...My reasons for opposing Trump are somewhat different from yours. First, personality cults are a terrible way to choose a president. The uncivilized behavior of many of his supporters alone would be good enough reason to oppose him. Second, he seems far more vindictive than the average politician is, even than Hillary. For example, he has already threatened to spend his own money to end the careers of Cruz and Kasich for no other reason than that they have not endorsed him. He also appears to be in the pocket of Vladimir Putin. <br /><br />Nevertheless, Trump is more a cause than effect. It is what his election would say about the USA and the character of her people, which concerns me most. It would represent a very bad milestone for the US on the way to a dictatorship, regardless of how well or how poorly he eventually performs. (I think he is likely to hand off the actual day-to-day operations to his vice, actually and it is also true that the ‘Trump as a signpost argument’ reverses cause and effect and therefore is merely an observation not a reason to vote against someone)<br /><br />‘In the sense that the "winner" would lack a clear mandate and on the off-chance neither Trump nor Clinton might end up in office, there is merit to that conclusion.’<br /><br />I am not sure it matters since a president has the same powers with or without a mandate and they do not seem to care about that once they get into power. I should point out; however, that your point contradicts an earlier comment you made against sequestering votes to a third party. At this point the only the other person who has a chance to get any Electoral College votes would be Gary Johnson. For example, if he and Weld took their home states, they might just keep Trump and Hillary below the required 270. Then it goes to the House of Representatives in which each state delegation gets one vote. http://lwv.org/content/who-will-elect-president-electoral-college-system (and the Senate for the vice president)<br /><br />This means that if the House Republicans voted as a block, they could choose the next president. I suspect that the vast majority would prefer Johnson who after all is essentially a Republican, using the Libertarian party for ballet access. OTOH, they might feel obligated to choose Trump since he would have more Electoral College votes. All this is pure speculation of course.<br />Steve Dnoreply@blogger.com