Ted Cruz MERGED

[clueliss]

Yeah, I'm thinking the Koch Brothers and company stopped funding.  

[Howl]

Oh my GOD!  It lives!  Can't someone drive a metaphorical stake through its heart?  

From HuffPo:

Quote

Senator Ted Cruz’s supporters are mounting an effort to seize control of the Republican platform and the rules governing the party’s July convention, the first indication that Mr. Cruz will not simply hand his delegates over to Donald J. Trump.

In an email sent Sunday to pro-Cruz convention delegates, a top aide to the Texas senator wrote that it was “still possible to advance a conservative agenda at the convention.”

“To do that, it is imperative that we fill the Rules and Platform Committees with strong conservative voices like yours,” wrote Ken Cuccinelli, who was the campaign’s former delegate wrangler and a former attorney general of Virginia. “That means you need to come to the national convention and support others in coming, too!”

However, this isn't new.  There were discussions of packing the Rules and Platform Committee with delegates sympathetic to Cruz two months ago. 

[Sundaymorning]

On 5.5.2016 at 4:16 AM, Hera said:

I'll say this: there's a big difference in being a Republican and not voting for your party's racist, sexist, war crime promoting, nuclear option loving buffoon of a candidate on principle and being a Bernie supporter refusing to support a candidate who is basically on your side, though not as radically, and risking a Trump presidency because you're pissed your guy lost.  The Republicans are being smart. The Bernie supporters risk cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

I honestly don't understand those Bernie stans who refuse to vote for Clinton. I really don't.

Even though he doesn't like Clinton at all, this guy actually gets it: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/pj-orourke-endorses-hillary-clinton-222954

[Maggie Mae]

it depends on your priorities. Some of the Sanders supporters wouldn't have voted democratic party otherwise. Sanders and Trump are both non- establishment voters. Well, Trump is an opportunist. But both are there shaking things up in the two party system. 

I think it's interesting how people can't seem to understand that some people find breaking up the establishment of the powerful two party system to be more important than "preventing Trump." I have the choice of voting for a rich woman who doesn't give a shit about this country or a rich man who is a pompous moron. I just don't care about either one. We survived Bush. We survived Reagan. We survived the other Bush. We survived Nixon and McKinley. 

I would rather use my vote to show that the people are tired of this oligarchy, which Clinton is a part of. If that means Trump, whatever. It's four years and he can't do much with out congress. Im voting third party. I want Sanders to keep winning. I want a new chair of the DNC. It's not sour grapes to actually know what is happening and want to share it. 

 

 

[Sundaymorning]

Just now, Maggie Mae said:

it depends on your priorities. Some of the Sanders supporters wouldn't have voted democratic party otherwise. Sanders and Trump are both non- establishment voters. Well, Trump is an opportunist. But both are there shaking things up in the two party system. 

I think it's interesting how people can't seem to understand that some people find breaking up the establishment of the powerful two party system to be more important than "preventing Trump." I have the choice of voting for a rich woman who doesn't give a shit about this country or a rich man who is a pompous moron. I just don't care about either one. We survived Bush. We survived Reagan. We survived the other Bush. We survived Nixon and McKinley. 

I would rather use my vote to show that the people are tired of this oligarchy, which Clinton is a part of. If that means Trump, whatever. It's four years and he can't do much with out congress. Im voting third party. I want Sanders to keep winning. I want a new chair of the DNC. It's not sour grapes to actually know what is happening and want to share it. 

 

 

Yeah, maybe you did. Over 500'000 people in Iraq did not. Hundred thousands of people in other places also died because of Bush's warmongering and overall incompetence. Bush caused havoc in the Middle East, the people there are still greatly suffering from it.

Here's the thing: I do completely understand that you want to get rid of this corrupt two-party system. And if this was just another country, I'd say go for it, even if you end up with a complete nutjob for 4 years as president.

But the US aren't just some random country. Around here, the US president is commonly called the "the most powerful person in the world". And therefore, I believe that every sensible and decent US citizen has a bit of a responsibility to consider what her/his vote could mean for the people outside the US. Electing (or not helping prevent) a lunatic doesn't just mean 4 bad years for a country and some damaged diplomatic relations which can be fixed later, but it truly is an acute danger for the whole world. The political climate in the world right now is bad, things are very fragile. And yes, Trump can do a lot without Congress. Each speech about foreign matters of the US president is watched closely everywhere around the world, Trump could single-handedly cause big chaos, people outside the US don't care about Congress, they care about the President. A maniac like Trump is a huge hazard for the whole world. 

[Witherwings]

1 hour ago, Sundaymorning said:

Yeah, maybe you did. Over 500'000 people in Iraq did not. Hundred thousands of people in other places also died because of Bush's warmongering and overall incompetence. Bush caused havoc in the Middle East, the people there are still greatly suffering from it.

Here's the thing: I do completely understand that you want to get rid of this corrupt two-party system. And if this was just another country, I'd say go for it, even if you end up with a complete nutjob for 4 years as president.

But the US aren't just some random country. Around here, the US president is commonly called the "the most powerful person in the world". And therefore, I believe that every sensible and decent US citizen has a bit of a responsibility to consider what her/his vote could mean for the people outside the US. Electing (or not helping prevent) a lunatic doesn't just mean 4 bad years for a country and some damaged diplomatic relations which can be fixed later, but it truly is an acute danger for the whole world. The political climate in the world right now is bad, things are very fragile. And yes, Trump can do a lot without Congress. Each speech about foreign matters of the US president is watched closely everywhere around the world, Trump could single-handedly cause big chaos, people outside the US don't care about Congress, they care about the President. A maniac like Trump is a huge hazard for the whole world. 

Bush was dealt a really bad hand with 9/11. 

Bush didn't solely cause havoc in the Middle East. There was already havoc in the Middle East. There has been for quite some time. People have been suffering from it for a long time. Certainly well before Bush was in office. Obama isn't innocent and contributed to the current state of the ME as well. He will be passing the torch with the Middle East a mess. 

What do you believe will happen if Trump is elected (by non-sensible and non-decent? US citizens?) How would Clinton be the better choice? What do you believe Bush should have done? Do you consider the "Arab Spring" successful? What was going on the middle east prior to al-Qaeda? 

I rank foreign policy pretty high on my list of concerns, but I don't know that Hillary Clinton is going to be any better than Trump in that regard. As @Maggie Mae stated, Clinton is part of the Oligarchy. Clinton (The Clinton Foundation) has received lavish donations from foreign countries. Some of those countries have actual conflicts of interest.  She receives plenty of money from speeches and the list goes on. Oh, and she voted in favor of the Iraq War in 2002. Trump was opposed to the war, unless you consider "I guess so" in response to Howard Stern being a firmly committed answer rather than an uncertain response. He wasn't a politician at that point. 

There is plenty wrong with Trump and I do have my concerns. Yet, I also have concerns with Clinton. Trump is not part of the establishment and I think some of the negativity in regards to Trump is hyperbolic. I don't want to vote for Clinton, I don't want to vote for Trump, but I will not vote for Clinton. There is absolutely no way it will happen. 

[apple1]

Wow. There are times when I have to look and try to figure out whether I am still on FJ. (Yes, I realize we are not a "hive vagina".)

Oh - and saying the same things many times over doesn't necessarily make them true.

If the shoe fits.

[Witherwings]

1 hour ago, apple1 said:

Wow. There are times when I have to look and try to figure out whether I am still on FJ. (Yes, I realize we are not a "hive vagina".)

Oh - and saying the same things many times over doesn't necessarily make them true.

If the shoe fits.

What are you referring to?

Also, are there Clinton or Bernie threads I am missing?

[Sundaymorning]

On 10.5.2016 at 9:06 PM, Witherwings said:

Bush was dealt a really bad hand with 9/11. 

Bush didn't solely cause havoc in the Middle East. There was already havoc in the Middle East. There has been for quite some time. People have been suffering from it for a long time. Certainly well before Bush was in office. Obama isn't innocent and contributed to the current state of the ME as well. He will be passing the torch with the Middle East a mess. 

What do you believe will happen if Trump is elected (by non-sensible and non-decent? US citizens?) How would Clinton be the better choice? What do you believe Bush should have done? Do you consider the "Arab Spring" successful? What was going on the middle east prior to al-Qaeda?

 

Of course, Bush isn't solely to blame for all the trouble in the Middle East. This region has always been a very difficult one politically speaking, that isn't anything new, many problems remained the same since the ancient world while new problems appeared.

So, Bush encountered a house that was already on fire. But instead of trying to quench the fire in an effective way, he and his administration just kept on adding fuel. And so, other buildings, which have been in a very bad state, but at least not burning down, also caught flames.

Just look at this Iraq war desaster: everybody outside the USA and Britain told Bush that this was a very, very stupid idea. In Europe, people went on the street to demonstrate against the war, even before it had begun. That was the first demonstration I took part.

What Bush should have done? Well, how about not starting any stupid wars which only lead to more terrorism and insecurity?

And it's not like the US were even well prepared for this two wars, they often acted very dilettantish. A cold-blooded, cleverly devised anti-terror strategy would have been way more effective. That could have included, for example, better intelligence work. The US under Bush didn't even have enough people who fluently spoke the needed langugages (like Arabic or Farsi). Or, instead of making most allies mad with his warmongering, Bush could have been pressuring the airports which provide flights to the US to finally enforce some decent security measures. Some clevery conducted drone strikes would have also been an option. And so on. Maybe not as spectacular, but it would have worked better. The money which was spent on counterproductive wars (several thrillions) could have been used way better to ensure the nation's security.

And why a president Trump would be way worse than a president Clinton?

I'm not even sure I will remember to list all the many reasons, but I will write down a few:

- Trump will throw women and LGBTI under the bus. Birth control, the freedom to choose, the effort to end discrimination towards LGBTI is under the attack of Republicans. I don't think Trump will stand up against them to fight for women...

- Trump will probably get to nominate a few SCOTUS judges. That is crucial, and unless you want some conservative nutjobs to rule for the next decades, that won't be good news for you.

- Trump's plan for the economy will basically lead to a huge meltdown. They might appeal to some people cause some of them look good on paper, but in fact, they will greatly hurt the economy, and therefore the citizens. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/donald-trumps-economy/481743/

- Trump promotes racial hatered. Which is about the last thing the US needs right now. His rhetoric causes great insecurity among certain population groups (like Latinos) and any forceful measure of his government against "illegal immigrants" for example will probably lead to riots and violence.

- Trump has a very unpredictable character. That is basically a huge hazard for any foreign relations. The US and the world can't afford a president who often acts like a three year old toddler. And sorry, if you think Clinton's character is bad, just take a single look at Trump. Clinton looks like a saint next to him.

Like this guy said: "I’m voting for Hillary! . . . It's the second worst thing that can happen to this country. But she’s way behind in second place. . . I mean, she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.” Referring to Donald Trump, he remarked, “I mean, this man just can’t be president. They’ve got this button, you know, in the briefcase. He’s going to find it.” http://www.scout.com/news/politics/story/1668585-libertarian-p-j-o-rourke-endorses-hillary

What I'm really wondering about: why do you think that Trump would be better than Clinton?

 

[Julifornia]

Trump doesn't give a shit about stopping abortion.  He won't do anything at all on that front, and probably won't appoint a SCOTUS nominee who will either.  The left doesn't have the abortion bogeyman with Trump as with Kasich. 

Trump was a registered Dem until 2004.  He's probably just about as establishment as Clinton is, but plays things off as bombastically as possible.  Honestly, aside from his capitalist/business leanings, he comes off to me as an establishment Democrat as much as Clinton.  Obama has done a bang-up job fomenting racial and class hatred, and Bernie's position on immigration is not different from Trump's.

Hillary is a warmonger.  She supported the Iraq war.  She has supported the overthrow of Ghadafi, the overthrow of Assad, and apparently was a big advocate for bombing Belgrade back in 1998 when her husband was president.

Iraq probably would have been better off under Hussein.  Syria is better off without US-backed rebels trying to overthrow Assad.  One thing about Sunni authoritarian dictators is that they spend a great deal of resources keeping the people in line, because they're terrified of overthrow.  It's once they get overthrown (Iraq) or knocked off balance (Syria) that everything goes down the tubes.  Islamic society is very different from US society.  I'm pretty sure Bush didn't have a clue about that at ALL when he meddled in Iraq.  The "stability needed in this region" is not really something that the Western world can or should participate in directly.  These people live on a vast area of desert rich only with a natural resource that is gradually being supplanted, and they've long since outsourced menial jobs to third-world slave labor.  If they want to survive long-term, they have to join the rest of the civilized world.  I'd prefer they do it on their own timetable and without any goading from the West.  There is plenty of internal pressure.

[Witherwings]

 

 

6 hours ago, Sundaymorning said:

Of course, Bush isn't solely to blame for all the trouble in the Middle East. This region has always been a very difficult one politically speaking, that isn't anything new, many problems remained the same since the ancient world while new problems appeared.

Yes, the middle east has seen chaos essentially from the start. Certainly well before the US existed. In fact, the US and ME had fairly good relations for quite some time, although one could say we weren't nearly as involved as we have been since WW2. That all changed quite a bit after WW2, dating back to Truman. 

6 hours ago, Sundaymorning said:

So, Bush encountered a house that was already on fire. But instead of trying to quench the fire in an effective way, he and his administration just kept on adding fuel. And so, other buildings, which have been in a very bad state, but at least not burning down, also caught flames.

Just look at this Iraq war desaster: everybody outside the USA and Britain told Bush that this was a very, very stupid idea. In Europe, people went on the street to demonstrate against the war, even before it had begun. That was the first demonstration I took part.

Reiterating my point above, Bush was not the first President to have a mess on his hands. However, he was the first to deal with a large scale foreign attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Note, the World Trade Center had already been attacked and President Clinton didn't react to this, as he also didn't to Black Hawks being shot down during the Battle of Mogadishu. 

I do agree, Iraq was a mistake. We didn't know that at the time. Hillary voted in support of the Iraq War. Democrats share the blame for the Iraq War. Also important to note, we currently have troops in Iraq. 

In regards to your buildings burning down analogy, maybe poor taste (I know, you didn't mean to. No ill feelings). Remember, 9/11 was not Bush's fault. Bush had a rough start to his presidency. 

6 hours ago, Sundaymorning said:

What Bush should have done? Well, how about not starting any stupid wars which only lead to more terrorism and insecurity?

One war was a mistake. Afghanistan is not so black and white. 

6 hours ago, Sundaymorning said:

And it's not like the US were even well prepared for this two wars, they often acted very dilettantish. A cold-blooded, cleverly devised anti-terror strategy would have been way more effective. That could have included, for example, better intelligence work. The US under Bush didn't even have enough people who fluently spoke the needed langugages (like Arabic or Farsi). Or, instead of making most allies mad with his warmongering, Bush could have been pressuring the airports which provide flights to the US to finally enforce some decent security measures. Some clevery conducted drone strikes would have also been an option. And so on. Maybe not as spectacular, but it would have worked better. The money which was spent on counterproductive wars (several thrillions) could have been used way better to ensure the nation's security.

Unfortunately, being ill prepared for the wars is part of a much bigger problem. I would suggest making sure our Military is sizable and well trained for potential threats. Downsizing the military (as we are currently doing) is probably not the best answer. President Clinton's time in office resulted in a drastic reduction of our military. Military language schools and military training take time. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lt-gen-clarence-e-mcknight-jr-/military-cutbacks_b_8048414.html

6 hours ago, Sundaymorning said:

And why a president Trump would be way worse than a president Clinton?

I'm not even sure I will remember to list all the many reasons, but I will write down a few:

- Trump will throw women and LGBTI under the bus. Birth control, the freedom to choose, the effort to end discrimination towards LGBTI is under the attack of Republicans. I don't think Trump will stand up against them to fight for women...

Trump is not a far-right Republican. Trump has shown more support of LGBT individuals than most republicans. Trumps priorities don't lie in religious right-wing issues. He is far more moderate than most (all?) of the other previous candidates on these issues. As said by @Julifornia, Trump doesn't give a shit about stopping abortions. I am highly doubtful he is going to do anything on this front.

6 hours ago, Sundaymorning said:

- Trump will probably get to nominate a few SCOTUS judges. That is crucial, and unless you want some conservative nutjobs to rule for the next decades, that won't be good news for you.

Trump isn't an extreme-right conservative nutjob. Trump has a history of being a democrat. He has been fairly mum about who he would nominate, although recently giving some indication. That also doesn't make him all powerful and there are Senate seats up for grabs. Clinton has been open to the idea of nominating Obama. Depending on your opinions of Obama, that could be a good or bad thing and it could be all talk. I am firmly against that one. 

6 hours ago, Sundaymorning said:

- Trump's plan for the economy will basically lead to a huge meltdown. They might appeal to some people cause some of them look good on paper, but in fact, they will greatly hurt the economy, and therefore the citizens. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/donald-trumps-economy/481743/

Trump needs some good economic advisers. 

6 hours ago, Sundaymorning said:

- Trump promotes racial hatered. Which is about the last thing the US needs right now. His rhetoric causes great insecurity among certain population groups (like Latinos) and any forceful measure of his government against "illegal immigrants" for example will probably lead to riots and violence.

Trump is a blowhard. I am not going to deny that. I don't think anyone is going to deny that. 

6 hours ago, Sundaymorning said:

6 hours ago, Sundaymorning said:

- Trump has a very unpredictable character. That is basically a huge hazard for any foreign relations. The US and the world can't afford a president who often acts like a three year old toddler. And sorry, if you think Clinton's character is bad, just take a single look at Trump. Clinton looks like a saint next to him.

Again, I agree Trump is a blowhard. I am hopeful that he can pull his shit together (or someone else can get him in line) but Clinton has proven that she doesn't gaf about what makes her character so bad. I have a difference of opinion. Maybe Clinton presents herself better, maybe she has more political experience. Yet, she is being investigated by the FBI for things that threatened US security. That is a big fucking deal. You can pretend otherwise, but it is not something to be taken lightly. I find it repulsive that she has called this a "security inquiry" repeatedly and laughs it off as a minor annoyance whenever this is brought up. There are people from all sides who see this as a concern, so it isn't some "vast right -wing conspiracy"  How would you feel if Trump were being investigated by the FBI?

6 hours ago, Sundaymorning said:

Like this guy said: "I’m voting for Hillary! . . . It's the second worst thing that can happen to this country. But she’s way behind in second place. . . I mean, she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.” Referring to Donald Trump, he remarked, “I mean, this man just can’t be president. They’ve got this button, you know, in the briefcase. He’s going to find it.” http://www.scout.com/news/politics/story/1668585-libertarian-p-j-o-rourke-endorses-hillary

I see it the opposite way. I think Clinton is terrifying, with Trump following behind her. 

6 hours ago, Sundaymorning said:

What I'm really wondering about: why do you think that Trump would be better than Clinton?

 

I have said this previously. I have stated some of my concerns with Clinton. I also don't like that she is towing the party line and so incredibly establishment that electing her, we are rolling over and allowing another 8 years of a really messed up system. I don't like nepotism. I don't like that she is the very essence of the establishment. I don't like trump, but I do like that he is shaking things up and bringing to light some of the problems with the two-party system, the delegate system in both parties, etc. He hasn't proven he is a security risk. He is a bit more transparent. He isn't a religious nut-job GOP or lifelong GOP. Heck, he isn't a lifelong politician. 

I am not thrilled with Donald Trump, but I do appreciate him shaking things up. I don't think I have ever been thrilled with any candidate I have been faced with voting for. I doubt there are many people who have unfaltering support for all policies of any candidate. 

There are issues I agree with Clinton on, issues I agree with Trump and issues where I disagree with them. I am not going to pretend that I disagree with everything Clinton puts forward. 

[sparkles]

2 hours ago, Witherwings said:

I am not thrilled with Donald Trump, but I do appreciate him shaking things up. I don't think I have ever been thrilled with any candidate I have been faced with voting for. I doubt there are many people who have unfaltering support for all policies of any candidate. 

There are issues I agree with Clinton on, issues I agree with Trump and issues where I disagree with them. I am not going to pretend that I disagree with everything Clinton puts forward. 

And what exactly is he shaking up, other than the sludge at the bottom of the tank? He spews inflammatory garbage without thought, he insults with abandon—even his own supporters, he backtracks and waffles and won't take responsibility for any of his utterances, he's megalomaniacal, classist, racist, misogynist, possibly anti-Semitic, you name it… I haven't heard a single intelligent discussion point come from his mouth. You could definitely say that Bernie Sanders is shaking things up. But Trump? Not in my wildest dreams. So please tell me @Witherwings. How, in your estimation, is he shaking things up for the good of the country, or the world, for that matter?

And I'm not attacking you, but you made the statement so I'm just asking you to elucidate.

[Witherwings]

2 hours ago, sparkles said:

And what exactly is he shaking up, other than the sludge at the bottom of the tank? He spews inflammatory garbage without thought, he insults with abandon—even his own supporters, he backtracks and waffles and won't take responsibility for any of his utterances, he's megalomaniacal, classist, racist, misogynist, possibly anti-Semitic, you name it… I haven't heard a single intelligent discussion point come from his mouth. You could definitely say that Bernie Sanders is shaking things up. But Trump? Not in my wildest dreams. So please tell me @Witherwings. How, in your estimation, is he shaking things up for the good of the country, or the world, for that matter?

And I'm not attacking you, but you made the statement so I'm just asking you to elucidate.

No problem. It is fair to ask.

Not a single thing? 

He has made points about corrupt influence of campaign financing, he has spoke against the war-on-drugs and mass incarceration, just to name a few things. There are clearly times when Trump is hyperbolic. There are also plenty of times when the reaction to things Trump says is hyperbolic.  

Example: This winter there were claims that Trump was going to shut down or ban the internet. The internet was full of people bitching about this. Yet, that wasn't what Trump was suggesting. He was not saying he was going to shut down the internet for everyone. He wanted to figure out (by consulting Bill Gates I believe?) how to shut the Islamic State out of being able to recruit teens or anyone else who may be a potential recruit, to join. IF that could happen, it would be a pretty big win. Unless you are ISIS. It is probably a win for the Muslim mother who is worried about her son running off to Syria to join ISIS. We can freely discuss the likely hood or realistic ability to do this, but he certainly wasn't suggesting the end of FB, Twitter and FJ for us.  Trump seems to enjoy Twitter. 

I have posted this already. I don't know that anyone has read it. If so, I will stop posting it and sorry to be obnoxious with it. I found it interesting.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2016-05-02/update-on-the-gop-presidential-race-after-the-republican-convention-in-california

I also saw this today.

http://time.com/4326646/donald-trump-paul-ryan-partnership/

Love him or hate him, Trump has brought attention to issues with the GOP delegate system (as Bernie has with the Democrats' system) People are noticing.  The current voting process is absurd. 

[nausicaa]

13 hours ago, Julifornia said:

Obama has done a bang-up job fomenting racial and class hatred

I've heard this claim from a lot of people. I'm honestly not saying this with a bitchy tone: I am genuinely curious if someone who believes this can give me specific examples of when he did this? Because all of that's gone right over my head. 

13 hours ago, Julifornia said:

 Islamic society is very different from US society.  I'm pretty sure Bush didn't have a clue about that at ALL when he meddled in Iraq.  The "stability needed in this region" is not really something that the Western world can or should participate in directly.  These people live on a vast area of desert rich only with a natural resource that is gradually being supplanted, and they've long since outsourced menial jobs to third-world slave labor.  If they want to survive long-term, they have to join the rest of the civilized world.  I'd prefer they do it on their own timetable and without any goading from the West.  There is plenty of internal pressure.

While I understand some of the points you're trying to make here in regards to the U.S. trying to supplant its culture onto others, I'm gonna admit some of the wording of this is kinda squicky to me. Without getting into it too much, I will just say that there are large parts of the Middle East (especially Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Lebanon) that are not geographically desert areas but incredibly fertile, and there are many Muslim people who live there who are both educated and what we would term as "civilized."

[DaisyD]

1 hour ago, nausicaa said:

I've heard this claim from a lot of people. I'm honestly not saying this with a bitchy tone: I am genuinely curious if someone who believes this can give me specific examples of when he did this? Because all of that's gone right over my head.

I am also curious about this. I've heard Mr. D say this, but he's waaaay too touchy about it to explain. 

[artdecades]

On 5/10/2016 at 10:20 AM, Sundaymorning said:

Yeah, maybe you did. Over 500'000 people in Iraq did not. Hundred thousands of people in other places also died because of Bush's warmongering and overall incompetence. Bush caused havoc in the Middle East, the people there are still greatly suffering from it.

Here's the thing: I do completely understand that you want to get rid of this corrupt two-party system. And if this was just another country, I'd say go for it, even if you end up with a complete nutjob for 4 years as president.

But the US aren't just some random country. Around here, the US president is commonly called the "the most powerful person in the world". And therefore, I believe that every sensible and decent US citizen has a bit of a responsibility to consider what her/his vote could mean for the people outside the US. Electing (or not helping prevent) a lunatic doesn't just mean 4 bad years for a country and some damaged diplomatic relations which can be fixed later, but it truly is an acute danger for the whole world. The political climate in the world right now is bad, things are very fragile. And yes, Trump can do a lot without Congress. Each speech about foreign matters of the US president is watched closely everywhere around the world, Trump could single-handedly cause big chaos, people outside the US don't care about Congress, they care about the President. A maniac like Trump is a huge hazard for the whole world. 

This! This! 1 million times this!

And lets not forget, the people who lost their homes, livelihoods, and lives during Hurricane Katrina. Sure, he couldn't have stopped the weather, but his response contributed significantly to the problem.

The people who lost their homes, jobs, families, everything during the great recession. 

What about all the BS his supreme court nominees have allowed to happen, like citizen's united and the hobby lobby decision?

His multiple attempts to undermine women and lgbt individuals and erode at civil rights

Bush hurt a lot of people for many years.

To say "we survived" comes from such a place of privilege its astounding. To then suggest that "we" will survive a trump is not only privileged but selfish and very ayn randian.