With all due respect (and that is great) strip away all of the peripheral information and logic from your post and you are left with
a much shorter post, with neither logic nor peripheral information.
... a very simple choice - either one accepts that there is at least a small chance that some uncertainty exists as to whether Trump will be a significantly better president than Hill-o-lies (to claim that there is no chance at all is to claim to be able to see the future, which is to be detached from reality) and then having the moral courage to roll the dice by voting for that option.
"A small chance that some uncertainty exists as to whether Trump would be a
significantly better president than Hillary." No, there is a huge chance that
uncertainty exists that he would be a better president than Hillary. There is an incredibly
enormous chance that uncertainty exists that he would be
significantly better.
The probability decreases as the belief in magnitude of any improvement increases. I think you have the curve backward. The highest probability that a lifelong liberal would be better falls into the 'marginally better, at best' part of that spectrum, by the time we get to 'significantly better', that probability decreases with the increase in the margin of improvement (probability is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the improvement), especially considering the positions taken on issues when there was nothing to be gained by taking positions other than what the candidate believed (back in the 'bad old days' when he was a typical New York Liberal Billionaire and not running for office as a populist Republican.)
The only down side to voting for Trump is that he turns out to be as bad as he seems in the darkest, most pessimistic view, and one is then left with a candidate that by even that estimation, would likely be no worse than Hill-O-lies. The best scenario is that he turns out to be a significantly better president than Hill-O-Lies would surely be.
This estimation leaves out a significant and salient factor. By the very nature of our Government, the Congress has the ability to limit or enhance the capability of the President by embracing the policies he proposes or by fighting them at every opportunity. If the Congress is controlled by members of the same political Party as the President, little opposition is to be anticipated, even to bad policy or legislation, as the vote will be on Party lines. Thus bad policy proposed by Trump would be fast-tracked by a GOP Congress or meet little resistance and almost certainly be made into law.
Someone once said 'no freedom is safe when the legislature is in session', and Congress is no exception.
Sometimes, gridlock is better.
Possible scenarios include:
A Dem president with a Dem Congress=doom.
A Dem President with a GOP Congress= (Ideally) gridlock.
A GOP President with a Dem Congress= (ideally) gridlock.
A GOP president with a GOP Congress=?
Why a "?" Because the GOP Congress didn't fight the Dem last time.
Instead they caved, almost religiously, to the Dem in the White House. They spent us into $10 trillion more debt in 8 years.
How can that lot be counted on to oppose bad policy proposals from a Dem (that's the longshot, here), much less bad policy proposals from another (alleged ) member of the GOP? So the outcome would not be based on the policy itself, but solely on the source.
At least with a Dem in the White House, the GOP can be held to task for not fighting tooth and nail and maybe we can primary out some of those rat-bastards who promised one thing and got 'beltway fever' as the votes were counted. I reserve any anger for that fiasco.
It's a long term strategy, to clean out the GOP. The only guarantees are death and taxes. Frankly, I am hedging my bet and voting for a Third Party candidate to get another organization waiting in the wings for when the GOP implodes.
So one risks virtually nothing substantively by voting for Trump and much to gain on the up side.
The only guarantee is that I would have sacrificed the very principles by which I have lived my life to back Trump. I'm just a small fry, but I have made six figure deals on a handshake, and have a reputation for honesty and integrity. No thanks. I will not so self-denigrated as to support someone who buys politicians and screws the help.
On the other hand, by not voting for Trump, the worst scenario is that one helps to ensure that Hill-O-Lies is elected by refusing to vote
What? Refusing to vote? Oh no, not me, I'm just not voting for either of those two. I'm voting for a USMC vet who is running for a Party with a platform based on the Constitution of the United States. Better yet, he is an attorney who has likely even read the Constitution, and as part of his enlistment oath has sworn to defend it. I think he's make a significantly better president for this Republic than Donny and Hillary blended together with all their bad parts strained out.
...based on refusal to accept even the small possibility that Trump would be a better president - with the all-but-inevitable result that significant damage will continue to be done to the nation and the world.
That depends on an electorate which has already failed a critical discernment test. It depends on keeping the feet of elected office holders to the fire at all levels, and it may depend on replacing some or many of those same officials, no matter who is elected.
The stage is already set for some serious economic and other setbacks, no matter who gets in. You can only kick the can down the road so far, and it has been filling with rocks the whole way.
If Hillary wins, we can blame the Democrats.
But buckle up, because no matter who gets elected, we're in for one hell of a ride.
If one believes that the evidence suggesting that Hill-O-Lies would be disastrous for the nation and the world are identical in strength to that which suggests the same for Trump, then there is nothing to debate.
You get it after all. I'm relieved. Finally.
Oddly the best and worst scenarios are identical in that case. Quite a difference in the best and worst scenarios of voting for either candidate.
Here, I thought you couldn't predict the future. But, lets look at the board:
We are 1.5 times GDP in debt, and our economic situation has been regulated by the Fedgov into the dirt. Both candidates have expressed support for the very agency which has done most of that damage.
Our military (God bless them!) will still be involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the smallest navy we have had in a long time, with weapons programs still not off the ways, and stuffed full of social programs and experimentation with force composition and rules of conduct and engagement which are costing lives now and will be only worse in the future. Mission capability will be compromised if this continues. Both candidates have expressed sympathy for the most damaging policies or their proponents and neither has one day behind a weapon in the service of this nation, much less as commander of any military unit.
Our borders aren't secure, and the one candidate who garnered votes early on based on a strong policy has walked that stance back.
Our economy looks good in the gimmicked numbers game that is official statistics, but is far from being prosperous, in an environment where small business was crushed under the ACA and other regulations, where work force participation is at historical lows, and industry has been crushed by the very agencies both candidates have promised support.
So by all basic logic and reasonable conjecture, refusing to vote for Trump boils down to purely a matter of self-gratification and satisfying angry feelings, not any resolving any objective concern for what is potentially the best thing for the nation.
By that logic voting for Trump is a matter of self-gratification bordering on orgasmic.
Trump's entire shtick has relied on capturing the angry feelings and fear of an electorate which felt betrayed by the GOP, which failed to do what it had generally promised to do vis-a-vis thwarting Obama. Considering the amount of impassioned discussion praising or extolling the Trump, "mass debate" seems to fit.
Those of us opposed to Trump have repeatedly laid out that we are not going to vote for a compulsive liar. We have often laid out very simple and logical reasons for not doing so.
We are not going to give the job of being the standard bearer of the free world to a man who has repeatedly in the past embraced values and behaviour antithetical to our core principles. To do so would give his behaviour the approval of those of us who do not approve.
His demonstrated behaviour is rash, vindictive, and self-serving.
[When the Make America Awesome PAC ad came out, published by Liz Mair's Marco Rubio supporting PAC, Trump jumped to the conclusion that Cruz had done it, despite Cruz disavowing the ad. (The image was on the cover of GQ Magazine in Europe, and should have been no surprise to either the model featured or the person who married her.) As a result of jumping to conclusions, Trump viciously attacked Heidi Cruz, who had nothing to do with the ad. When it came out that Cruz had nothing to do with the ad, Trump lied about that, and redoubled his attacks on Heidi Cruz.
Do you want to take 'misidentified attacker', retaliated against innocent party, found out party was innocent and lied to cover his ass rather than admit mistake and issue apology, and then attacked innocent party again, repeatedly, to DEFCON1?
Hillary doesn't want to nuke anyone, it's bad for the Foundation.]
Either way, the down side is very down. The up side is either a longshot or a stalemate.
Some games you can't win.
Frankly, I will vote for someone I can support.
