Would you give up a second Obama term to avoid a Trump presidency?

[Valmy]

Agree Sanders is horrible and scary. However, he would have had little ability to implement his terrible policies since the Republicans control almost everything else.

[Barrister]

I think it's more in keeping with the spirit of the original question to think of people who would be worse than Trump.

Here's my list:

Bernie Sanders?

Trump does have some positives - some of his cabinet appointments have been solid, he promises to appoint conservative USSC justices, that mitigate against his general awfulness.  A hard-left President like Sanders isn't as awful a human being, but he doesn't have any positives to bring to the table either.

I was talking to Yi, not you.

[Valmy]

Yeah well let's see who he appoints.

[Jacob]

Yeah well let's see who he appoints.

I'd definitely prefer Yi to appoint any new Supreme Court Judges, but I don't think it'll happen.

[Jacob]

As for the poll question, Romney in 2012 if it means no Trump without a doubt.

[Admiral Yi]

Trump does have some positives - some of his cabinet appointments have been solid, he promises to appoint conservative USSC justices, that mitigate against his general awfulness.  A hard-left President like Sanders isn't as awful a human being, but he doesn't have any positives to bring to the table either.

My understanding is they are all social conservatives, not my preferred flavor of conservative.

[Berkut]

Yeah, the fact that spicey has so partaken of the Kool Aid of the Rush Limbaugh wing on the conservatives that he thinks this would even be an interesting question is way more interesting than the actual question.

The difference between Obama and Romney is a sliver compared to the difference between Trump and pretty much anyone, including his fellow Republicans.

[DGuller]

This question is a complete no-brainer, as long as Romney is only marginally better than Trump.  It doesn't matter how good of a president Obama was.  The only quality of his that will turn out to matter are his political skills, which are atrocious.  It is this lack of political skills that will multiply by zero all his achievements, and leave us with an extremely destructive political party holding all levers of power on top of that.

[frunk]

I have no idea who your pronouns are referring to.

[DGuller]

I have no idea who your pronouns are referring to.

To him.

[Razgovory]

I have no idea who your pronouns are referring to.

Он

[The Minsky Moment]

The leading candidate for Trump's supreme court pick is Diane Sykes.
Here's one of her leading opinions:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6601456173694501289&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholar

SIU also claims CLS violated the university's Affirmative Action/EEO policy, which states that SIU will "provide equal employment and education opportunities for all qualified persons without regard to[, among other things,] sexual orientation." We are skeptical that CLS violated this policy. . . . In response to the law school's inquiry about its membership policies, CLS explained that it interprets its statement of faith to allow persons "who may have homosexual inclinations" to become members of CLS as long as they do not engage in or affirm homosexual conduct. The same is true of unmarried heterosexual persons: heterosexual persons who do not participate in or condone heterosexual conduct outside of marriage may become CLS members; those who engage in unmarried heterosexual conduct and do not repent that conduct and affirm the statement of faith may not. CLS's membership policies are thus based on belief and behavior rather than status, and no language in SIU's policy prohibits this

Bottom line: it is not discrimination against gays to discriminate against anyone who "affirms homosexual conduct"

[Barrister]

The leading candidate for Trump's supreme court pick is Diane Sykes.
Here's one of her leading opinions:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6601456173694501289&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholar

SIU also claims CLS violated the university's Affirmative Action/EEO policy, which states that SIU will "provide equal employment and education opportunities for all qualified persons without regard to[, among other things,] sexual orientation." We are skeptical that CLS violated this policy. . . . In response to the law school's inquiry about its membership policies, CLS explained that it interprets its statement of faith to allow persons "who may have homosexual inclinations" to become members of CLS as long as they do not engage in or affirm homosexual conduct. The same is true of unmarried heterosexual persons: heterosexual persons who do not participate in or condone heterosexual conduct outside of marriage may become CLS members; those who engage in unmarried heterosexual conduct and do not repent that conduct and affirm the statement of faith may not. CLS's membership policies are thus based on belief and behavior rather than status, and no language in SIU's policy prohibits this

Bottom line: it is not discrimination against gays to discriminate against anyone who "affirms homosexual conduct"

BS.  CLS is clearly discriminating (and also discriminates against those who engage in unmarried heterosexual conduct).  But it's allowed to because it's a religious organization following the tenets of it's faith.  This is an easily defensible decision.

[LaCroix]

that's not the bottom line

CLS prohibited non-marital sex. technically speaking, the judge is right. 

[The Minsky Moment]

that's not the bottom line

CLS prohibited non-marital sex. technically speaking, the judge is right. 

No technically speaking she's wrong.  CLS separately prohibits "affirmation" of homosexual conduct, of any kind under any circumstance.  That is exactly what the university policy prohibits.