2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[Ivysaur]

Okay. Latest poll out of South Carolina looks bad for Sanders - his numbers haven't really changed since a couple months back and the primary is in two weeks. Is the beginning of the end of the line or just dirt off his shoulders?

Nobody knows what will happen in Nevada a few days earlier. If he does well there, it might be just a bump. Supertuesday is when it counts though.

The Republican debate tonight was dismal. I still consider myself conservative, but these men do not represent my views in any way. It's frankly depressing to see how terrible this election already is with all the Republicans and Hillary attacking Sanders underhandedly on the Democratic side. Add in Scalia's death and a nightmare and embarrassment for the American people looms overhead.

You are sounding like David Brooks.

 

[Klippy]

You are sounding like David Brooks.

I am not Obama's biggest fan, but I can agree with some of that article. He does come off as much more collected and "presidential" than any of our current choices (in terms of presentation). I actually discussed this earlier with someone, but movies and television present the President of the United States as a handsome, charismatic leader most often (George Clooney-style). Aside from Obama, we've never really even had a president with that type of charm or look - maybe candidates though: Mitt Romney, Martin O'Malley, and even Rick Perry somewhat represent that movie-presidential look that is always seen in movies. There's a certain professionalism to the position in cinema though, whereas the real 2016 candidates are completely nuts.

What a tangent.

 

[Netto Azure]

With that Supreme Court vacancy, any hesitation on going with either Clinton or Sanders (whoever the nominee is for the Dems) is gone from my mind.

As for that whole starve the beast talk, you know what happens when tax revenue is reduced? Republicans just simply rack up the debt to please the elderly constituency and defense industries. It's all fantasy and ash.

I made fun of David Brooks a few weeks ago over those 2 articles (one about having the Repub establishment launching a coup to take back the party from the coo-coos and one missing Obama) as him coming out of a decade long coma.

 

[Livewire]

Bernie's numbers in South Carolina are unfortunate but expected, South Carolina is a pretty 'red' state even by southern standards so it makes sense that red-state dems would fall more into the quote "establishment" side of the aisle and be pro-Hilary. He should focus on Nevada and the Rocky Mountain states, he should do well in Colorado and the other three primaries out west.

 

[Klippy]

Bernie is only 19% behind Clinton in the latest SC poll done this weekend. It's a gap, yes, but with the time left, if people are out there canvassing for him, it's both possible and worth a shot to close that gap. The more he wins near her, the better his case is.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

@NK the point is that a government will oppress you whether it has a lot of money or not. You can't starve a government out of oppression. Don't think that the NSA will disappear even if you cut the federal budget by half. You'd probably need revenue to decline to North Korea levels before the NSA starts to look unaffordable.

@1890s I edited my post too. Read that bit about pollution, lack of universal K-12 education, roads, social security, healthcare. Only 87% of the population was literate and less than 50% of blacks were literate.

How did we ever get to 90% tax socialism? I thought we were talking about how Trump's plan is a tax break to the rich. Is the logical connection here that if we don't have Trump's plan we'll have 90% tax socialism?

Also, you're not going to fork even close of 55% of your taxes over unless you're in the 1%. If you're not a millionaire or a billionaire yet, it's a good idea to not worry about what's not even going to happen to millionaires or billionaires.

Okay. Latest poll out of South Carolina looks bad for Sanders - his numbers haven't really changed since a couple months back and the primary is in two weeks. Is the beginning of the end of the line or just dirt off his shoulders?

And you missed the point that a oppressive regime will stay through indoctrination if it is allowed, which it was certainly allowed by the communist Koreans who fought the war to establish communism.

Again, we still had a government that could run with less taxes. While Trump's plan for taxes isn't exactly favorable (I'd prefer a flat tax of 15% across the board, which would drastically lower the tax burden on most classes), it is still a step forward toward less government spending (which is needed when we're shoulders deep in debt).

How else will you get enough money for all that stuff he wants? BernieCare it's self will cost the tax payers trillions, a 15$ per hour wage for a minimum wage will increase inflation by a helluva lot. His policies' price tag, according to the Wall Street Journal has a price tag of 18 trillion. For a comparison, here is our debt clock clocking a debt of about over 19 trillion at the time of this post.

Also, these polls severely sadden me. As much as I hate Bernie, I'd vote him over my dead body if the other candidate was Hillary.

 

[Klippy]

Spoiler:

And you missed the point that a oppressive regime will stay through indoctrination if it is allowed, which it was certainly allowed by the communist Koreans who fought the war to establish communism.

Again, we still had a government that could run with less taxes. While Trump's plan for taxes isn't exactly favorable (I'd prefer a flat tax of 15% across the board, which would drastically lower the tax burden on most classes), it is still a step forward toward less government spending (which is needed when we're shoulders deep in debt).

How else will you get enough money for all that stuff he wants? BernieCare it's self will cost the tax payers trillions, a 15$ per hour wage for a minimum wage will increase inflation by a helluva lot. His policies' price tag, according to the Wall Street Journal has a price tag of 18 trillion. For a comparison, here is our debt clock clocking a debt of about over 19 trillion at the time of this post.

Also, these polls severely sadden me. As much as I hate Bernie, I'd vote him over my dead body if the other candidate was Hillary.

Here's another sheet with some different numbers AND proposed cuts on where to gain that money.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Here's another sheet with some different numbers AND proposed cuts on where to gain that money.

The amount is still around over 13 trillion in 10 years, which is an ungodly amount that these proposed cuts will most likely not pay enough for. Either way, it will end up as increased taxes bleeding into the lower classes as well.

 

[Klippy]

The amount is still around over 13 trillion in 10 years, which is an ungodly amount that these proposed cuts will most likely not pay enough for. Either way, it will end up as increased taxes bleeding into the lower classes as well.

Not arguing the numbers or your numbers, merely posting an alternate look. :P

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Not arguing the numbers or your numbers, merely posting an alternate look. :P

Eh, true. Though this does seem to be better than the aforementioned 18 trillion, I'm not about do add all those numbers lol. All I know is 10 x 1.39 trillion = 13.9 trillion and there's more numbers to add.

 

[illumine]

When it comes to Sanders, lesser-evilism in the primaries is a bit farcical, given that Clinton isn't generally liked by people who dislike Bernie. It would seem that such lukewarmness would have aided the Republicans. Anyway, Americans generally didn't do that much of interest with money, especially the ordinary ones, might as well have them use it differently for general spending. The main opposition there would have just been between their use of money as capital or for the purpose of private benefit and the state spending it on social benefit which would affect the rest of the population, in which sense the latter generally made more sense, although it was ambiguous. It seems reasonable that the candidate with the most emphasis on political views in an election, who is being starkly opposed to two beneficiaries of mostly personal hype, would emphasise the state and its position, and perhaps be slightly callous about private interests as a category. You wouldn't oppose them for that reason. That said, it seems telling that there has been no pronounced reaction on the Republican side or candidates there to the popularity of Bernie's form of rhetoric, it would seem that they've exhausted their concrete political ability to react to such or that would have happened by now, or in brief the opposition to Bernie is by now a moribund political entity. As such, generally speaking voters or bases are being asked to make a case against Sanders while the others pussy-foot around this, and in general to connect the dots there, which seems blatantly unfair to these people.

That said, it seems it might be a distraction to discuss Bernie's tax policy in lieu of their significance to these specific elections, and hence what they represent categorically on a political field, as numbers can be weighed by mathematicians, Hegel and 'donors.' Politicians rarely enacted exactly what they claimed to, but they did have to carry on the direction they had taken. Promises are promises, and need not be expected, but what they do and are politically, carries over politically. In this you'd have to look at the other candidates, or what they're saying these things to stand against, and in this they are standing in favour of the state, for whatever good it may do them.

A candidate who relates to the political, retrenched by opposition to the otherwise pseudo-celebrity climate of these elections, might not be expected to wish to leave the state and the wealth of the nation in the charge of an 'invisible hand,' which is just as much to say that it has no conscious centre, and hence the state is considered defunct. Taking such as some form of principle can only benefit them in their path. The rest is probably run through various channels to make sure it sounds acceptable to people, and like something that might be promoted.

The other main candidates predominantly tend to be premised on people's indifference to politics in elections, or their outsourcing of this elsewhere, and hence are mostly about people's personal controversies or 'manners' and such, but obviously if politics was removed from the electoral realm or officialdom and found somewhere amongst the people, the popularity of a taxation-associated candidate would be an evident manifestation of this, although it is not the point.

 

[Netto Azure]

Personally I'd rather have a candidate propose magical unicorns over detailed policy proposals that would be teared up by legislative sausage making. It certainly gives a lot of leeway during the inevitable watering down of such proposals anyway.

Because right now having a candidate have a slogan of "be happy with half loaves and crumb's" doesn't exactly excite people.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Donald Trump is the only candidate who isn't bought and paid for. He may be brazen on the topic of immigration, but we really need to set our foot down. I think we should get rid of all the illegals, build the wall, and vigorously prosecute anyone caught hiring illegals. We can then make legal immigration easier once we have the systems in place to make sure everyone who wants to come here is vetted and has a job waiting here or can support themselves with their own resources. Get rid of NAFTA too.

On the upcoming South Carolina and Nevada races, Trump is going to win both handily on the GOP side. On the Dem side, if Sanders can eek out a win in Nevada and use that momentum to make South Carolina a lot closer than expected, he should look good going all the way to Super Tuesday.

 

[Kanzler]

NAFTA is ... complicated. Wide-reaching trade deals have severe consequences for everybody involved. The benefits are not distributed evenly, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the costs outweigh the benefits. NAFTA has significantly restructured all three North American economies and I'm not sure what the net benefit would be if the agreement was scrapped.

 

[Netto Azure]

It's been articulated before but this pretty much sums up my position on the Dem primary.

One of the comments on this article.

Every politician makes implausible claims during the election especially when it comes to the economy. The value of Sanders campaign is that without it Hillary would be tacking further Right assuming she had the Democrat base and just needed to woo Independents and dissatisfied GOP voters. Prior to Bernie's campaign she wasn't focusing on "Progressive" ideals.
Details can always be worked-out and intelligent plans can be tweaked. The reality is those of us who support Sanders do so because there is a fundamental difference in the direction of the campaigns, Clinton's focus is on the Party's Elites, Sanders is the champion of the base. The wonderful thing about the Sanders campaign is that it's pulled Hillary's head out of the clouds and forced her to see what's really going on on the ground, if she'd been paying attention she wouldn't be getting tripped-up on the way to her assumed coronation.

While yes it would be nice to have detailed policy proposals fine print doesn't really galvanize voters outside of wonks and political junkies. How else does a certain party run on tax cuts paying for themselves in the midst of unlimited war?

Plus you have to set high goals in a campaign. One of the realities of governing is that policy proposals get whittled down in order to garner a legislative majority.

 

[Ivysaur]

I'm so ridiculously excited to see Trump sweeping up with every delegate in Establishment-stronghold South Carolina you wouldn't believe.

I also wrote an obituary for Jeb Bush. I wanted to publish it after NH but I have had to keep it in the fridge for the time being. Wonder if I'll finally get to print it on Sunday.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

I'm so ridiculously excited to see Trump sweeping up with every delegate in Establishment-stronghold South Carolina you wouldn't believe.

I also wrote an obituary for Jeb Bush. I wanted to publish it after NH but I have had to keep it in the fridge for the time being. Wonder if I'll finally get to print it on Sunday.

If he does win, with current trends, he would become president. It wouldn't be a good thing with no political backgrounds, as he may spark WWIII or some shit. However, it could do the US economic good. I just don't know how he'll get Mexico to build the wall; they make a lot of our electronics and automobile parts so cutting ties with them until they build the wall would also hurt us economically.

 

[Ivysaur]

You know what's the thing? I donated $10 to Sanders and I'll tell everybody who asks me to vote for him. But I'm a fan of Trump from a sociological standpoint. Objectively speaking, he has no business being the Republican frontrunner, and yet he has been for months, and he's on a clear path to victory. His existence explains so much about the current state of US politics, the social divide between "old white" groups and "modern mixed" ones, and the extremisation of the Republican party as a whole in a desperate attempt to conservate an ideal picture of a country that doesn't exist any more- the more it changes, the more radical the way back has to be.

It's also a sort of "political bet". Last summer, I said he was a very serious candidate and that, looking at the polls, he had a very good chance of winning; and the polls have barely budged since then. Of course, in a general, Trump has really awful fundamentals- moderates and independents loathe him, the Republican party has been on the "wrong" side of the map since Clinton rearranged the state affiliations in 1992, and Trump, if anything, would scare the Democratic base into turning out, which is their biggest weak point. I think that the current state of the betting market, with Clinton a 50% favourite to win the general, is about right. And I would be extremely horrified by a Trump presidency- it would do uninimaginable damage to the USA brand worldwide. But his existence tells a very deep -and scary- story about the political landscape of the US, a story most pundits -and the GOP establishment- were hoping to keep hidden under "polls in November aren't accurate" and "Marcomentum". And I do believe it needs to be addressed.

 

[Klippy]

I just don't know how he'll get Mexico to build the wall

He's not suggesting they build it necessarily, but that they pay for it. He's offered up increases in visa fees, higher taxes on Mexican CEOs, and cutting aid to Mexico entirely. So America would pay for it and build it, but it would be paid for through fees and money that would normally be for Mexican aid.

Source: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

 

[Thepowaofhax]

He's not suggesting they build it necessarily, but that they pay for it. He's offered up increases in visa fees, higher taxes on Mexican CEOs, and cutting aid to Mexico entirely. So America would pay for it and build it, but it would be paid for through fees and money that would normally be for Mexican aid.

Source: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

I guess that could work, but I'm no economic major and I have no actual idea what the amount of money he would get for that is. However, I can guess that it would make enough for the 25 million dollar wall.

It's also a sort of "political bet". Last summer, I said he was a very serious candidate and that, looking at the polls, he had a very good chance of winning; and the polls have barely budged since then. Of course, in a general, Trump has really awful fundamentals- moderates and independents loathe him, the Republican party has been on the "wrong" side of the map since Clinton rearranged the state affiliations in 1992, and Trump, if anything, would scare the Democratic base into turning out, which is their biggest weak point. I think that the current state of the betting market, with Clinton a 50% favourite to win the general, is about right. And I would be extremely horrified by a Trump presidency- it would do uninimaginable damage to the USA brand worldwide. But his existence tells a very deep -and scary- story about the political landscape of the US, a story most pundits -and the GOP establishment- were hoping to keep hidden under "polls in November aren't accurate" and "Marcomentum". And I do believe it needs to be addressed.

Current politics in the US is scary indeed. You either get stuck with the Authoritarian Right (except the Tea Party, but let's face it; , or you get stuck with a bunch of phonies claiming to be "liberals" when they are social collectivists. The Replebicans. None of the current parties actually care about the rights of the individual and only for their goals. The only other Republicans that are anti-establishment are Marco Roboto (another senator with little experience, aka Obama 2.0) and Ted Cruz (a bold-faced liar). No party is for the people, only the anti-establishment candidates are and only two of them are worth mentioning (and one of them doesn't have political experience and could quite easily make current friends foes, etc)/ He is only for the people in an economic sense and could easily remove tax loopholes, etc.