2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[Thepowaofhax]

Well yeah, South Carolina is a particularly red state. Red State Dems, particularly minority ones, are going to be a different shade of blue than ones from say, Ohio or the West coast.



You mean the inflated scandal that was never a scandal?

She literally had highly confidential emails in her servers. I see no reason why she should get a free pass.

 

[Netto Azure]

Wasnt it unclassified and then retroactively made classified?

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Wasnt it unclassified and then retroactively made classified?

Incorrect, they weren't marked classified according to her but that isn't relevant due to her non-disclosure agreement as a secretary of state. The US government says 22 of those emails are top secret, so why should she be let off the hook? Nepotism, I tell you.

 

[Esper]

Election season: when anything that a candidate you don't like does becomes something they should be disqualified from public office for. Everyone's illegitimate, everyone's corrupt, everyone's breaking the law, everyone should give up.

It's no wonder that Trump and Sanders are doing as well as they are. We're so partisan that anything in anyone's political history that is even a little bit murky looking is treated like cold blooded murder because we don't care about the political process and democracy as much as we just want our people in power and not the other people.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Election season: when anything that a candidate you don't like does becomes something they should be disqualified from public office for. Everyone's illegitimate, everyone's corrupt, everyone's breaking the law, everyone should give up.

It's no wonder that Trump and Sanders are doing as well as they are. We're so partisan that anything in anyone's political history that is even a little bit murky looking is treated like cold blooded murder because we don't care about the political process and democracy as much as we just want our people in power and not the other people.

Kind of hard to not disqualify someone who has committed a federal crime and will likely be in prison in a few years, with some of the information being top secret material that should've never made the light of day on her email server. After all, how will you run a country in a government penitentiary? Why should someone who obviously can't be trusted with federal, top secret papers that she knows she shouldn't of put on that server because of her non-disclosure agreement ever be a president?

And if you want to be technical, Trump is a dick who tried to evict someone, but you see no one complain about that. Isn't that "murky?" How come he's doing so well as you claim, but has had numerous people try to get him disqualified because he said very controversial shit about Muslims. It isn't that we're too partisan and more-so that we're sick of these establishment politicians. At this point, our country can easily become a Kakistocracy of it's former self with this lying politicians that do nothing more but bend over to Super PAC money and never do what they claim they will ever do. I see no reason for your downplaying of the voters.

(And technically it's not even Democratic; otherwise Al Gore would've been our president instead of Bush. Damn Electoral College.)

 

[Esper]

It isn't that we're too partisan and more-so that we're sick of these establishment politicians.

I see the recent clamor for anti-establishment candidates as tied to the hyper-partisan state of politics. We don't like that nothing gets done in politics (because it's too partisan) so we cry out for someone new and different to cut through it, all the while not realizing that in doing so we're bringing our partisan ideas with us. Because we see the anti-establishment types not as those who will bring sanity and get the sides to work together, but as juggernauts who will steamroll over the other side and let us have things our way.

I don't mean this as a dig at voters. I think people who are upset at Super PACs and the electoral college are right to be concerned by these things because they muddy the democratic process. I also think that everyone right now feel disenfranchised. To a degree I think a lot of people are, but I think that in their anger they're not being careful about who their targets are. Ban all Muslims? More people in America are killed by Christian terrorists than Muslim ones, and both are small numbers compared to the thousands killed by gun violence. But I'm getting off track here...

People should be angry, but angry at the people making our democracy less democratic.

 

[Kanzler]

I see the recent clamor for anti-establishment candidates as tied to the hyper-partisan state of politics. We don't like that nothing gets done in politics (because it's too partisan) so we cry out for someone new and different to cut through it, all the while not realizing that in doing so we're bringing our partisan ideas with us. Because we see the anti-establishment types not as those who will bring sanity and get the sides to work together, but as juggernauts who will steamroll over the other side and let us have things our way.

But perhaps we do need a juggernaut. Bringing sanity and getting the sides to work together might just be a polite way of describing establishment politics that undercut the average American and most disenfranchised sections of society. Compromising might be satisfactory to both parties but still hurt the American people.

EDIT: This may interest you guys.



EDIT2: To be fair to the Republicans of today, the illegal migrant population has grown at about 10x since Reagan and Bush were having this debate. The problems back then were not as real as it is now.

 

[Sir Codin]

For those of you voting, keep in mind that House of Representatives is also doing an election this year, so be aware of that as it might limit your candidate's effectiveness should he or she get into office.

 

[Netto Azure]

It's been that way since 2010.

 

[Esper]

But perhaps we do need a juggernaut. Bringing sanity and getting the sides to work together might just be a polite way of describing establishment politics that undercut the average American and most disenfranchised sections of society. Compromising might be satisfactory to both parties but still hurt the American people.

Maybe, although I don't think compromise is acceptable to the two parties anymore (well, to one party anyway, but it takes two to tango).

Is it naive to think that compromise between the parties isn't the problem and that money in politics is the root of the American citizen's disenfranchisement?

 

[Netto Azure]

Well when independent candidates have to get money from the same people as the major parties in order to mount viable campaigns...

The lack of public financing (on down the ballot candidates) and free allotted airtime for candidates really makes American democracy kinda behind other major OECD countries.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

I think it's official. America is a Kakistocracy.

For the Republican side, we have a bold-faced liar who will do everything in his way to win, an essential Klansman (see recent David Duke controversy) with no experiance who will try to lie himself out of trouble, and another young senator who will make the same fatal mistakes as Obama by not listening to any of his advisors. Did I mention he's a robot as well?

For the Democratic side, we have a socialist who will stab the middle class in the back with higher costs of living and another liar who particularly loves to leak confidential, top-secret emails.

There is no point in this current election now. It's all about finding which one of these idiots are the shiniest turd of them all. I honestly hope the citizens go into a revolution after this election, as none of these candidates are for the people, nor are any of them politically competent. We will never make America great again with these kind of politicians and it will only get worse from here.

 

[Kanzler]

I think it's official. America is a Kakistocracy.

For the Republican side, we have a bold-faced liar who will do everything in his way to win, an essential Klansman (see recent David Duke controversy) with no experiance who will try to lie himself out of trouble, and another young senator who will make the same fatal mistakes as Obama by not listening to any of his advisors. Did I mention he's a robot as well?

For the Democratic side, we have a socialist who will stab the middle class in the back with higher costs of living and another liar who particularly loves to leak confidential, top-secret emails.

There is no point in this current election now. It's all about finding which one of these idiots are the shiniest turd of them all. I honestly hope the citizens go into a revolution after this election, as none of these candidates are for the people, nor are any of them politically competent. We will never make America great again with these kind of politicians and it will only get worse from here.

That's way too much Fox News for you. Let's talk to some less-stabbed-in-back middle class people from more-socialist not-America, shall we?

 

[Mobile Tsk]

I voted for Trump and it was not an easy vote nor one that sits particularly right for me. Of course I disagree with many of his proposed "policy suggestions" and his fairly divisive rhetoric. I do appreciate that he rejects politically correct culture, though, and I truly can't stand Cruz or Rubio. Cruz takes dishonesty to a level that is unheard of even for politicians. Rubio's foreign policy, while not too different from Trump's, is decisively more reckless and dangerous. My vote was mainly a protest vote against the provided establishment-friendly candidates this election cycle (namely Rubio, Bush, Christie, Carson, and Fiorina) as well as against Ted Cruz. While I find her incredibly corrupt, I will likely be voting for Clinton this fall.

As expected, huge wins for Clinton and Trump tonight. I expect that to continue into the night as more states are called.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

That's way too much Fox News for you. Let's talk to some less-stabbed-in-back middle class people from more-socialist not-America, shall we?

Really now? Because between his 18 trillion dollar proposals and increase of inflation, both will lead to increases of higher costs of living for most if not all classes, just like most Socialist countries. For example, many countries in Europe, namely Scandinavia, have high gas prices EVEN THOUGH they control a lot of Nordic oil. Not to mention their higher taxes, as quoted here:

Scandinavian countries are known for having high taxes on income. According to the OECD, Denmark (26.4 percent), Norway (19.7 percent), and Sweden (22.1 percent) all raise a high amount of tax revenue as a percent of GDP from individual income taxes and payroll taxes. This is compared to the 15 percent of GDP raised by the United States through its individual income taxes and payroll taxes.

And....

In order to raise a lot of income tax revenue, income tax rates in Scandinavian countries are rather high except for in Norway. Denmark's top marginal effective income tax rate is 60.4 percent. Sweden's is 56.4 percent. Norway's top marginal tax rate is 39 percent.

Not only this, but their taxes are also rather flat, as said here:

Sweden and Norway have similarly flat income tax systems. Sweden's top marginal tax rate of 56.9 percent applies to all income over 1.5 times the average income in Sweden. Norway's top marginal tax rate of 39 percent applies to all income over 1.6 times the average Norwegian income.

Is this really what you want? After all, if you want Socialism, why would you want a proponent of Scandinavia's democratic socialism with such high, ridiculous taxes, high gas prices even though it's had a crash in the market (1.7~ dollars compared to 6.28$ or 13 kr per liter). He will do nothing but backstab our populous, one known for it's over-indulgence for buying "stuff" (which means whatever they see at the time).

Source.

 

[Kanzler]

Really now? Because between his 18 trillion dollar proposals and increase of inflation, both will lead to increases of higher costs of living for most if not all classes, just like most Socialist countries. For example, many countries in Europe, namely Scandinavia, have high gas prices EVEN THOUGH they control a lot of Nordic oil. Not to mention their higher taxes, as quoted here:

And....

Not only this, but their taxes are also rather flat, as said here:
Is this really what you want? After all, if you want Socialism, why would you want a proponent of Scandinavia's democratic socialism with such high, ridiculous taxes, high gas prices even though it's had a crash in the market (1.7~ dollars compared to 6.28$ or 13 kr per liter). He will do nothing but backstab our populous, one known for it's over-indulgence for buying "stuff" (which means whatever they see at the time).

Source.

Yes, but the Scandinavians are generally happy, get universal healthcare, paid family leave, free education, strong public pensions, and low levels of poverty. It's not like money just disappears from the economy because you're taxing it.

I mean, if I believe that under socialism (I mean Socialism) you pay such high ridiculous taxes and money just simply evaporates, then no I don't want Socialism. But if I believe that socialism means paying high and progressive taxes for an extensive social contract that diminishes poverty, promotes equalities and opportunities for future generations, then yes I want socialism. I want a system where making sure most people are better off is a higher priority than giving a few the opportunity to become extraordinarily rich.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Yes, but the Scandinavians are generally happy, get universal healthcare, paid family leave, free education, strong public pensions, and low levels of poverty. It's not like money just disappears from the economy because you're taxing it.

I mean, if I believe that under socialism (I mean Socialism) you pay such high ridiculous taxes and money just simply evaporates, then no I don't want Socialism. But if I believe that socialism means paying high and progressive taxes for an extensive social contract that diminishes poverty, promotes equalities and opportunities for future generations, then yes I want socialism. I want a system where making sure most people are better off is a higher priority than giving a few the opportunity to become extraordinarily rich.

Extraordinarily rich? People who make the average wage are by default taxed this high numbers, and won't stop until it goes to around 1.5 to 1.6. Just because the Scandinavians might be happy doesn't mean the US will be happy. As said, 60,000$ and down the drain goes 36,000$ to "diminish poverty" in Scandinavia. That's fine and dandy, but that isn't going to help the struggling middle class (the average being 50,000$) in America, who under these similar taxes that Bernie wants if he wants a Scandinavian-like system, would be taxing 30,000 dollars. The person would be left with a meager 20,000$. That is the wage of the lower-class given to the middle class to bring more health care policies that won't work, increase deficit, etc. This is not a fair tax at all for the struggling middle class of America, and it doesn't matter if it's going to promote free college, health care and equalities that have already been granted.

Health Care, for example, could potentially be much cheaper if they just let privatized health care insurers to work outside of their confined area just like other insurance companies. The best course of action would the be implementing anti-collusion laws in health care, and the prices will drop down for these providers and the consumer will then in be able to buy into these insurance companies, leading to more people being insured and more people to pay these companies. Government health care has also been quite bad North America; Canada has it's long wait time, and America has had it's spree of uneducated healthcare workers like the infamous Schneider.

For college, there is also the argument that government education in America particularly tends to be lower standard that privatized schools, and with government programs like Common Core, which would water down the standards of many states, it would seem so. Instead of making college free outright, we could try incentivizing working hard for better grades and education. Many people in our public school systems don't care about their grades until it is too late, and if we try to incentivize it we could easily both heighten standards over a course of time and allows these students the availability of more scholarships, grants, etc.

If anything, the most I'd do regarding socialism in this country is raise the minimum wage to 10.25$ on the expense of lower taxes across the board.

 

[Kanzler]

Extraordinarily rich? People who make the average wage are by default taxed this high numbers, and won't stop until it goes to around 1.5 to 1.6. Just because the Scandinavians might be happy doesn't mean the US will be happy. As said, 60,000$ and down the drain goes 36,000$ to "diminish poverty" in Scandinavia. That's fine and dandy, but that isn't going to help the struggling middle class (the average being 50,000$) in America, who under these similar taxes that Bernie wants if he wants a Scandinavian-like system, would be taxing 30,000 dollars. The person would be left with a meager 20,000$. That is the wage of the lower-class given to the middle class to bring more health care policies that won't work, increase deficit, etc. This is not a fair tax at all for the struggling middle class of America, and it doesn't matter if it's going to promote free college, health care and equalities that have already been granted.

What you're failing to consider is that the Scandinavian countries are already a lot more equal that you guys in America, so those taxes are not as scary as they would be if you just transplanted them into the United States. I don't believe that Sanders, if President, will fight for taxes that are appropriate for a highly equal country - that will only raise the burden on the middle class. If you listen to what he has to say, and not just Fox News, then you'd know that he wants to tax the 1%, those people who aren't representative of the middle class, and are take home a disproportionate amount of income and wealth.

Health Care, for example, could potentially be much cheaper if they just let privatized health care insurers to work outside of their confined area just like other insurance companies. The best course of action would the be implementing anti-collusion laws in health care, and the prices will drop down for these providers and the consumer will then in be able to buy into these insurance companies, leading to more people being insured and more people to pay these companies. Government health care has also been quite bad North America; Canada has it's long wait time, and America has had it's spree of uneducated healthcare workers like the infamous Schneider.

Uh, sure Canada has it's long wait times - you've been up here yourself and found out, yes?

Look, my provincial program covers medically necessary emergency and preventative care. That means if I go to the doctor, that's covered. If I fall ill and have to stay at a hospital, that's covered. If I get cancer and have to get surgery and take medication, that's covered (usually). None of that comes out of pocket. Drugs can be partially covered, but our prices aren't as ridiculous anyways. I don't know about you, but that's a lot of security that we're buying with our money, and we don't even spend as much money per capita than Americans do on healthcare, so there's that too.

For college, there is also the argument that government education in America particularly tends to be lower standard that privatized schools, and with government programs like Common Core, which would water down the standards of many states, it would seem so. Instead of making college free outright, we could try incentivizing working hard for better grades and education. Many people in our public school systems don't care about their grades until it is too late, and if we try to incentivize it we could easily both heighten standards over a course of time and allows these students the availability of more scholarships, grants, etc.

The United States needs to ask itself two questions. Do you want a highly educated workforce that's competitive with those of other Western countries around the world? And if the answer to that is yes, then are you willing make that happen as a society?

If the government does not step up, you're going to have the same old status quo - hard working, smart kids will not be able to enjoy the fruits of a university education because they cannot pay for it, not because they are not deserving. Compared to many other Western countries, the cost of college is out of control.

Free college is honestly not the most important point to people who care about this issue. The point is to make college more accessible. Personally, I'll be happy with any program that can drive out-of-pocket tuition costs down at least 25% (somewhat less vomit-inducing for this Canadian here), but I can't really talk about what an average American is willing to stomach for affordable post-secondary education.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

What you're failing to consider is that the Scandinavian countries are already a lot more equal that you guys in America, so those taxes are not as scary as they would be if you just transplanted them into the United States. I don't believe that Sanders, if President, will fight for taxes that are appropriate for a highly equal country - that will only raise the burden on the middle class. If you listen to what he has to say, and not just Fox News, then you'd know that he wants to tax the 1%, those people who aren't representative of the middle class, and are take home a disproportionate amount of income and wealth.



Uh, sure Canada has it's long wait times - you've been up here yourself and found out, yes?

Look, my provincial program covers medically necessary emergency and preventative care. That means if I go to the doctor, that's covered. If I fall ill and have to stay at a hospital, that's covered. If I get cancer and have to get surgery and take medication, that's covered (usually). None of that comes out of pocket. Drugs can be partially covered, but our prices aren't as ridiculous anyways. I don't know about you, but that's a lot of security that we're buying with our money, and we don't even spend as much money per capita than Americans do on healthcare, so there's that too.



The United States needs to ask itself two questions. Do you want a highly educated workforce that's competitive with those of other Western countries around the world? And if the answer to that is yes, then are you willing make that happen as a society?

If the government does not step up, you're going to have the same old status quo - hard working, smart kids will not be able to enjoy the fruits of a university education because they cannot pay for it, not because they are not deserving. Compared to many other Western countries, the cost of college is out of control.

Free college is honestly not the most important point to people who care about this issue. The point is to make college more accessible. Personally, I'll be happy with any program that can drive out-of-pocket tuition costs down at least 25% (somewhat less vomit-inducing for this Canadian here), but I can't really talk about what an average American is willing to stomach for affordable post-secondary education.

How else will he get his 18 trillion dollars? Logically he cannot get the money by taxing the rich all by itself, even if the tax is 90% it will never raise enough money for that astronomical amount.

Again, you fail to see that fact that if you get something like cancer, by the time you get surgery you could've already been dead. Those wait times are ridiculous. Meanwhile, as I've said, we have uneducated healthcare workers championing our forms of government healthcare. I say this because they are incompetent and don't care about the patient and merely the money; this is not good at all.

You're also assuming most of these people who want to go to college are what you describe. If a person flunked all of high school, they should never get a free ride in college because their clear intentions was to never benefit society. In fact, a majority of students seem to not care about their education at all (in my area, anyways), so why should they be given a free ride on the expense of the Middle and Upper Classes even after they had known that if they actually worked hard, they could have accessed many scholarships that would've driven down the costs as well as other forms of financial aid. This is why incentivizing making higher and higher grads in high school would be a better course of action then just making college free with a highly expensive plan; as this would make more people in our education system have these scholarships available.

Another thing that people also fail to realize is that Bernie is spineless. He has low leadership potential and he would be against a house and senate that is Republican controlled, essentially making any and all of his plans null unless he uses an executive action, and he seems like the kind of person who wouldn't do that due to his spinelessness. An example of this would be when he let a BLM supporter take his mic in his rally.

 

[Netto Azure]

It's no use trying to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it. I mean for example why are seniors die hard fans of Medicare if universal health insurance was such an evil scourge? Why isn't the rest of Western Europe, Australia, Taiwan and Japan falling into barbarism? At the end of the day life experience shapes our beliefs and trying to put forward explanations shakes ones fundamental belief system which just causes defensiveness and retrenchment. Believe me I tried, it was like banging my head into a wall for 4 years. TL;DR posts are tiring lol xD

I've felt it too with this primary season. For some who know me here I've mentioned in PC elections and whatever politics thread we have on how I'm thoroughly a Social Democrat for almost a decade, and now here is a candidate who espouses most of what I would like domestic policy wise. And what do I see? A return of Cold War Red Scare tactics and McCarthyism. On the Democratic side it's nonstop media blockade and fatalism as if they've lost sight of the ideal goal.

I've already seen calls for Bernie to end his campaign after this Super Tuesday and unite behind Hillary, but to me that would be the wrong move. What I learned from 2008 in the really long primary fight between Hillary and Obama was that a protracted primary fight holds candidates feet to the fire, help establish a strong ground game for the general elections and a sense of camraderie.

Still I guess that's what kinda makes me somewhat "conservative" in the current social issues side of the Democratic party, since I still subscribe to a more universalist approach to policy issues than the wonk loved rube Goldberg machines of piecemeal identity politics laden policy prescriptions. It is a double edged sword for the Democrats it seems.