2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:24 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:If they repeal the 14th amendment, does that mean that anyone who isn't an indigenous native American has to leave the country? Or does it apply to them as well?


It wouldn't be retroactive, I think. Not that repealing amendments is a common thing, but post-prohibition, they didn't go back and treat all the enforcement actions as illegal.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:31 pm UTC

JoshuaZ wrote:
duckshirt wrote:Back on topic... I think Joe Biden will be the Dem nominee. He will announce his run in September and get Obama's backing which will be big. Obama is a lot more popular than Hillary and the email/foundation stuff is not looking good.

On the Republican side I am hoping for Rand. His numbers are low right now but I think the debates will help him as he's probably the best debater aside from maybe Ted Cruz.


What probability do you estimate that Biden will be the eventual nominee?

I don't know, maybe 50% Joe, 20% Hillary, 20% Bernie, 10% other. How well he does probably depends on how well the economy stays propped up does.

Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for Trump. He is only tied for the lead in Iowa, but his 'approval' is about half of Carson's so there's not much for him to gain.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Wed Sep 02, 2015 12:48 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:If they repeal the 14th amendment, does that mean that anyone who isn't an indigenous native American has to leave the country? Or does it apply to them as well?

Repealing most amendments, including this one, wouldn't actually change any laws - it would just change what types of laws are allowed to be passed by Congress. So if the amendment were repealed, Congress could theoretically, for example, redefine citizenship to only be for people who have served in the military. (Or the Supreme Court could come up with some wacky interpretation of the rest of the Constitution and do the same thing, but that's the newer version of the Supreme Court - the last 60 years or so - that many don't like, using power they shouldn't have in the first place.) But the definition of citizenship wouldn't automatically change. It's not about changing the rules, it's about throwing out the rulebook and saying we can make a new one.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Wed Sep 02, 2015 2:04 pm UTC

The thing that I worry about more (tinfoil hat time) is that attacking the 14th Amendment isn't about illegal immigration. Its about attacking the Equal Protections clause.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Sep 02, 2015 2:18 pm UTC

Ironically, Trump acts more like a good politician than any of the professional politicians.

Jeb Bush apologies over "Anchor Babies", despite them being a legal loophole in the immigration system. Jeb Bush wants to address specific issues, and addressing issues makes enemies.

Donald Trump hasn't said anything of worth yet. He's extremely vague in promises. However, that's why he works so well. Every disenfranchised Republican can gather behind Trump and say "He's our guy" because he hasn't really said anything to piss anyone off. The media frenzy to catch this guy with one-liners is honestly being used against them. Donald Trump's points aren't "Anti Veteran" (despite the insult he slung at McCain), he isn't "anti-immigrant" (despite the insults he slung at Univision). Anyone who actually listens to Trump knows... he's just playing generic politician.

The Dilbert guy Scott Adams has been analyzing his manner of speech recently. Donald Trump speaks like a hypnotist and a salesman. Vague on issues and strong on promises. But its a strategy that works very well for a good chunk of the population.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Wed Sep 02, 2015 2:38 pm UTC

I don't think hypnotist is the right word for Trump. If you want to watch a hypnotist, watch speeches of Martin Luther King. Or Adolf Hitler.

But Trump does use a number of clever manipulation techniques, and he has a lot of charisma. He's immune to the normal kind of political attacks that his opponents use, because he manages to not care about them in such a way that nobody else cares anymore either. People admire audacity, and he's certainly audacious. He also manages to dictate the conversation, so anything thrown at him will almost immediately be out of the spotlight again. He reminds me a bit of Berlusconi. The kind of shit Berlusconi got away with is truly staggering.

Scott Adams gives him a 98% chance of winning the presidency. That's of course ridiculous. He doesn't even have a 98% chance of living until the elections. But I do think he's a strong contender.

Which is quite horrible. I really fear for the world if Trump wins. Although I give it something like 10% odds that Trump is just pretending to be a huge clown, and is secretly quite moderate.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:20 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:The thing that I worry about more (tinfoil hat time) is that attacking the 14th Amendment isn't about illegal immigration. Its about attacking the Equal Protections clause.


I don't think that's the actual goal. However, it does not need to be something that is desired to have a negative effect on equality. Unintended consequences are just as real as intended ones.

KnightExemplar wrote:Ironically, Trump acts more like a good politician than any of the professional politicians.

Jeb Bush apologies over "Anchor Babies", despite them being a legal loophole in the immigration system. Jeb Bush wants to address specific issues, and addressing issues makes enemies.

Donald Trump hasn't said anything of worth yet. He's extremely vague in promises. However, that's why he works so well.


I do not deny that Trump's strategy has proved effective thus far. He's not a stupid man, but I suspect he is a terrible one. In short, not knowing what he actually stands for, and strongly suspecting the answer is mostly just Trump, is a really good reason for me to NOT vote for him.

So, I suppose the issue is how to make others react the same way, because you're right...it IS common. And it's a problem even when it's not taken to Trump levels of excess.

Diadem wrote:Although I give it something like 10% odds that Trump is just pretending to be a huge clown, and is secretly quite moderate.


Historically, he's taken plenty of liberal platforms, so, from a certain perspective, you could call him moderate. Not in the sense of embracing moderation, but in not being wholly one thing or the other. I'm not sure this is actually reassuring, though.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:49 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:If they repeal the 14th amendment, does that mean that anyone who isn't an indigenous native American has to leave the country? Or does it apply to them as well?


Three-Fifths of them can stay.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:01 pm UTC

Time for another round of NYTimes snapshot of a presidential candidate. Last time it was how fiscally conservative Marco Rubio isn't fiscally conservative in his personal life, and now it's Jeb Bush's turn. For the supporters of each candidate, this is a political hit job, but I do like the window it opens into each candidate, and politics in general.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/us/po ... lized.html
TLDR
Jeb gave the not so subtle thumbs up to fund a campaign supporter, who unfortunately was dumb enough to get caught misspending his state grants.
Spoiler:
Mr. Campos’s scheme began several years after Mrs. Bush died in 1992, when he told the Bushes that he had come up with a novel way of honoring her — with a small museum, in her name, within the train station here, where she had once arrived from up North on the passenger train the Orange Blossom Special. For funding, he turned to the new Republican administration in Tallahassee, headed by Jeb Bush, Mrs. Bush’s grandson.

Over seven years, the State of Florida awarded about $1.2 million in a series of grants to support putting together the museum as well as restoring historic rail cars, complementary displays that Mr. Campos promised would be inaugurated in an opening ceremony at which the Bushes would be honored guests.

But the museum was never built, the rail cars languished, and about the time Mr. Bush left office in 2007, law enforcement agencies began a criminal investigation into Mr. Campos. He eventually was charged with multiple felonies and accused of misusing hundreds of thousands of dollars in state funds. In 2013, he pleaded guilty to grand theft.
My favorite quote,
"Those records also suggest that while Mr. Bush never explicitly endorsed using state money for the project, he did not stop the funding, either. Instead, a grant manager for the state told investigators, the message from supervisors was: “Whatever Campos wants, make sure he gets it, because he could cause them a lot of problems and was politically connected to the right people.”"

Now imagine that across all the entire country, but with federal line items (and the huge funds available for the taking). This isn't solely a Bush problem, all politicians are corrupt this way. Most of the time, it's legal, but then again so was enhanced interrogation, Scientology, and covering for pedophiles in churches.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:52 am UTC

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N11G03M20150910

WASHINGTON, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Donald Trump mocked the physical appearance of fellow Republican U.S. presidential candidate Carly Fiorina in remarks published on Wednesday, saying: "Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that?"


Stay classy, jackass.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Sep 10, 2015 6:15 am UTC

sardia wrote:Now imagine that across all the entire country, but with federal line items (and the huge funds available for the taking).


So, you'd get the Clintons?

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:21 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
WASHINGTON, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Donald Trump mocked the physical appearance of fellow Republican U.S. presidential candidate Carly Fiorina in remarks published on Wednesday, saying: "Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that?"

Stay classy, jackass.


Hahaha!

For Trump and the news networks, it's nothing but a virtuous circle!

Nowhere is Donald Trump’s position as Republican presidential frontrunner more keenly enjoyed than by US cable news channels where, after an unprecedented 25 million viewers tuned into the first primary debate on Fox News last month, appearances by the property developer and reality-TV star have come to be regarded as a ratings gold mine.

For the second debate on 16 September in California, CNN is asking $200,000 (£130,000), 40 times its normal rate, for a 30-second prime-time spot. TV advertising strategists say it is hard to quantify Trump’s value to the media, or the value of non-stop free media attention to Trump’s commanding lead over the Republican field, but CNN’s ad price is a good indicator.

“CNN have put a huge price tag on the upcoming debate and they’re selling it like a major sporting event,” says David Campanelli of Horizon Media, a New York TV sales and research firm. “This early on in the political process we can be 100% certain it’s related to Donald Trump.” Some analysts have gone further in their assessment, calling the Celebrity Apprentice star “the Simon Cowell of politics” owing to his habit of making blunt assessments. He described Jeb Bush, his closest rival polling at less than half Trump’s 30%, as “low-energy”.

Trump’s ratings draw is reported to be behind the willingness of TV newscasters to interview the candidate at the Trump Tower, with its backdrop of Trump branding, rather than risk losing him by insisting he come to them. Even NBC, which ended its relationship with Trump in June after he disparaged Mexican immigrants, signalled its willingness to repair relations by inviting him on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon next Friday.

TV producers say they consider Trump an “exceptionally desirable” guest. This convergence of politics and entertainment has left many uncertain how to handle the candidate. When Fox News’s Megyn Kelly attempted to address Trump on issues of character and not policy, in the first debate, it resulted in a backlash against Fox, not Trump.

“There’s a reason Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor of California,” says Billie Gold at the TV sales and research firm Carat. “Once you have a known figure, they take on a character. Trump is saying things you don’t normally hear in politics and people are curious to know what his plans are.”

TV producers warn that, if Trump’s ratings begin to fall, news producers will turn to him less. But Gold says she’s not so sure the Trump phenomenon will die down. “He’s great for the news media because he’s so polarising, entertaining and different. That’s why they’re talking about him wall-to-wall. For the cable news outlets, this is huge.”


Also, here is a more in-depth analysis on why Trump is finding traction with voters

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:07 pm UTC

Okay, guys, it was funny at first, but now the joke's getting old. There's no way Trump can become president of the world's premier superpower. Right?

Right?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:13 pm UTC

I'd think at that point, a revolution becomes necessary.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:41 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:Okay, guys, it was funny at first, but now the joke's getting old. There's no way Trump can become president of the world's premier superpower. Right?

Right?
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Trump has a mouth. He will trip over it sooner or later. However I assume it would supercharge the Democratic base, it could even force me to vote for Clinton.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:49 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Trump has a mouth. He will trip over it sooner or later.


He's tripped over it loads of times, it doesn't seem to make him less popular.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 10, 2015 8:27 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Trump has a mouth. He will trip over it sooner or later.


He's tripped over it loads of times, it doesn't seem to make him less popular.
It's much easier to love someone before you get to know them. He's currently in that honeymoon. It will get uglier as it goes on. Will his ego keep a lid on his mouth when the mud starts to fly?

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby charliepanayi » Thu Sep 10, 2015 9:48 pm UTC

Also bear in mind in the past we've had the likes of Bachmann and Giuliani leading polls at this early stage and they've fallen away. Maybe Trump can bag the nomination/win the Presidency (stranger things have happened I guess) but at the moment this all still feels like the phony war stage anyway.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Sep 11, 2015 4:16 am UTC

We'll see how well Trump is doing in a month; Jeb released a totally unrealistic tax plan that should get the Republicans excited. 3.4 trillion in cuts over ten years, but the massive economic growth it will surely spark will generate 2.2 trillion in additional revenue to make up for most of it, then it's just budget cuts for the rest. Revenue as a percent of GDP was 17.5 last year, so using that as a baseline, you would need ~12.5 trillion in additional GDP, which is a fiscal multiplier of 3.7.

Bush's plan is this:
Increased standard deduction
Cap itemized deductions at 2% of gross income
Increased EITC
Reduced middle and top tax brackets
Reduced capital gains tax
Eliminate Alternative Minimum Tax
Eliminate Estate Tax
Cut corporate taxes

So this ends up being an across the board tax cut, which according to Moody's Economy has a fiscal multiplier of about 1.03, so basically, the real result will be nowhere close, and it will significantly increase the deficit which will either result in Bush having to raise taxes (hah!) or cut spending; the spending cuts, of course, will probably wipe out all the economic gains from the tax cuts.

I also submit that no tax cuts have ever resulted in the economic gains predicted by Republicans.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitt ... -tax-plan/

Now, if he did only the first three items I listed, and then raised taxes on the rich to pay for it, I might get behind him.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby jestingrabbit » Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:47 am UTC

The best explanation that I've heard for Trump is that he's in an ideological space with no other players anywhere near him. When the field thins a bit, the larger number of voters in the contested ideological spaces will coalesce around the fewer, shall we say more sensible, players, and Trump's fortunes will wane.

Even if he wins the primary, which he won't, he's got no chance in the main game, anyway.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:52 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:The best explanation that I've heard for Trump is that he's in an ideological space with no other players anywhere near him. When the field thins a bit, the larger number of voters in the contested ideological spaces will coalesce around the fewer, shall we say more sensible, players, and Trump's fortunes will wane.

Even if he wins the primary, which he won't, he's got no chance in the main game, anyway.


I believe the ideological space argument seems sound...but there's also a significant element of dislike of the traditional candidates.

Even here, on all sides, I see nobody really all that enthused about the more mainstream options. We all recognize that Hillary, Bush, etc are safe establishment picks, but nobody seems all that enamored of them.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1201
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Fri Sep 11, 2015 3:57 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I believe the ideological space argument seems sound...but there's also a significant element of dislike of the traditional candidates.

Even here, on all sides, I see nobody really all that enthused about the more mainstream options. We all recognize that Hillary, Bush, etc are safe establishment picks, but nobody seems all that enamored of them.

This is pretty much it. In the last two or three years I've seen more all-around exasperation and disillusionment with the political establishment on all sides of the field than in the rest of my life put together. As disturbing as it is to realize, I guess there's people who are just so fed up that even a walking Jerry Springer interview like Trump seems like a refreshing change of pace to them...
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 11, 2015 6:08 pm UTC

He's at least amusing. In the same way as a train wreck, perhaps, but still.

And I certainly chuckled at the surprisingly high results of "Deez Nuts".

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:11 pm UTC

So Rick Perry announced today that he had been running for President.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... id-n426106
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Sep 16, 2015 1:13 am UTC

"The silent majority stands with Trump," proclaimed the posters. But in truth, there was nothing very silent about this raucous audience who packed the American Airlines Center in Dallas.

Twenty thousand people waited in the sun and heat to gain access to the arena. They dressed in costumes, they wore badges and hats and T-shirts. And once inside they shouted. Sometimes they booed and jeered - mention Jeb and they booed; mention Hillary and they booed even louder.

And when Trump mentioned Trump - which he did quite a lot (if anyone did a word cloud I'm sure that Trump was the word he used most) they cheered.

There were other bogeymen too - China, Japan and Mexico also brought howls of derision. Mention of illegal immigrants brought howls of rage.

This was politics as pantomime. With plenty of villains. And only room for one hero. Yes, we know who that was...

He spoke for nearly an hour without a teleprompter. The speech was in two halves. The first was Trump on Trump - where he spoke about the money he had made: $200m plus, just from presenting The Apprentice. How he had deals galore in the pipeline. But how everything had been put on hold to allow him to run for the Presidency.

And here was the political point: Other candidates had to make no sacrifices because they were professional politicians, but because he was a top-of-his-game business tycoon, he was going to lose a lot of money by his tilt for the White House (I think he'll be OK though).

And second political point, because he was so rich, he was funding this campaign himself and wouldn't be in the pocket of any of the "bloodsuckers", as he called the money men, the lobbyists, the corporate wheelers and dealers.

He talked about the polls: "We're killing it," he repeatedly declared. He said he was way out in front. But he complained that the media refused to admit he was surging, focusing instead on the campaigns of his rivals. Again a clever way to portray him as the outsider; the upsetter of orthodoxy, the insurgent tearing at the walls of conventional politics.

And then - finally - a ramble through policy:

On women: "I have such respect for women, I cherish women, I'm going to take such good care of women's health care issues you won't even believe it."

On trade deals, he was going to stop jobs going abroad.

On illegal immigration - and here in Texas, which shares a common border with Mexico - those who shouldn't be in the US would be kicked out. He would build a wall. A beautiful wall, a Trump wall. That got an ecstatic reaction.

He promised to unveil detailed tax and growth policies in the next three weeks. And let us be honest, detail is something that has been thin on the ground thus far.

The Affordable Care Act would be reformed, veterans would be treated better. And then he brought his speech to a close with the slogan, "Make America great again."

This is the Donald Trump phenomenon and bandwagon. It is 14 months to the election, and 20,000 people were packed into this sports arena in Dallas to hear him.

A lot of pundits predicted that his support would fizzle out after the summer. It doesn't seem to be happening.

Donald J. Trump. Leader of the Free World.

If it wasn't for the fact he'd be in charge of the most powerful military in human history, it'd be almost worth the pain to see it.

link

(lol @ "I have such respect for women, I cherish women, I'm going to take such good care of women's health care issues you won't even believe it.")

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby charliepanayi » Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:05 am UTC

Nothing new with Dallas though is it, apparently a lot of people there were quite cheerful when Kennedy was assassinated there. And we all know Texas will be Republican in the Electoral College come November 2016 anyway.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:33 am UTC

commodorejohn wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I believe the ideological space argument seems sound...but there's also a significant element of dislike of the traditional candidates.

Even here, on all sides, I see nobody really all that enthused about the more mainstream options. We all recognize that Hillary, Bush, etc are safe establishment picks, but nobody seems all that enamored of them.

This is pretty much it. In the last two or three years I've seen more all-around exasperation and disillusionment with the political establishment on all sides of the field than in the rest of my life put together. As disturbing as it is to realize, I guess there's people who are just so fed up that even a walking Jerry Springer interview like Trump seems like a refreshing change of pace to them...

I think there was an honest hope that Obama would be something genuinely different, and he ended up a pretty ordinary president.

If he was our best hope and still ended up nothing special, I can see why other establishment figures are going to fail to inspire, and why someone as off-the-wall as Trump might offer something exciting and new.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:50 pm UTC

elasto wrote:I think there was an honest hope that Obama would be something genuinely different, and he ended up a pretty ordinary president.

If he was our best hope and still ended up nothing special, I can see why other establishment figures are going to fail to inspire, and why someone as off-the-wall as Trump might offer something exciting and new.


I agree. Obama's neither spectacularly better, nor spectacularly worse. He's pretty normal as presidents go, and I suspect that once a good bit of time has passed, the historical view of him will trend towards moderation.

Hillary is pretty obviously less inspiring than Obama, given that she lost against him head to head. Bernie appears to be connecting with more people than Hillary, at least. I dunno that this is a terribly high bar, though.

While it sticks a bit to use the word "inspirational" in reference to Trump...looking around at most of the candidates, they are anything but. At least Trump can promise change, in some sort of vague way, between his chest pounding and insults.

curtis95112
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby curtis95112 » Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:48 pm UTC

Oh believe me, Trump getting elected will bring lots of change.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:48 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:The best explanation that I've heard for Trump is that he's in an ideological space with no other players anywhere near him. When the field thins a bit, the larger number of voters in the contested ideological spaces will coalesce around the fewer, shall we say more sensible, players, and Trump's fortunes will wane.

Even if he wins the primary, which he won't, he's got no chance in the main game, anyway.


I believe the ideological space argument seems sound...but there's also a significant element of dislike of the traditional candidates.

Even here, on all sides, I see nobody really all that enthused about the more mainstream options. We all recognize that Hillary, Bush, etc are safe establishment picks, but nobody seems all that enamored of them.


I think you've nailed it.

Especially on the republican side. Notice that it's not simply the case that Trump - an outsider to the DC political machine - is leading. Number two is Ben Carson. And coming up behind him is Carly Fiorna. The top three candidates, at least right now, are all people who aren't establishment candidates. None of the establishment candidates are even competitive right now.

We're tired of being lied to. We're tired of seeing the people we put into office not only fail to do what they promised; but fail to even attempt to do what they promised.

Bottom line, I don't think most of the support we're seeing for Trump is as much an endorsement of Trump as it is a rejection of the establishment candidates. Whether that can sustain itself into the general election, and then into the White House, remains to be seen. But it would be a mistake to underestimate just how much contempt people have for the status quo government right now, especially on the conservative side.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:01 pm UTC

Cphite, they lie to you because you can't handle the truth. They don't attempt what they promised because it's not practical.
Last edited by sardia on Thu Sep 17, 2015 1:47 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:24 am UTC

sardia wrote:Cphite , they like to you because you can't handle the truth. They don't attempt what they promised because it's not practicable.

The sad thing is that there is truth to what you say. Doesn't exactly reflect well on Democracy as a system of government, does it.

Anyone got any better ideas though?

(With the right checks and balances, I actually do think choosing our leaders by lottery could work. Works for juries after all.)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Sep 17, 2015 1:51 am UTC

elasto wrote:The sad thing is that there is truth to what you say. Doesn't exactly reflect well on Democracy as a system of government, does it.

Anyone got any better ideas though?

(With the right checks and balances, I actually do think choosing our leaders by lottery could work. Works for juries after all.)

Take lessons from the NRA. Their civic engagement is superb despite their recent fundamentalism. Be willing to accept higher taxes. Right now, everyone is fighting over mere scraps compared to what social security and medicare/medicaid get. That's all due to the relatively low taxes we have. Now politicians don't have to lie to you, because they can actually ask and get things done instead of fighting for months just for the status quo.

PS I sound like an idiot when I'm typing on my phone. That annoys me to no end. =(

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Cradarc » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:04 am UTC

To be honest, I'm not that informed about politics. Do any of you know how much power does the POTUS actually have?
I mean, we grill all the candidates on these questions, but at the end of the day, it's Congress that's making the laws. No matter who is in office, they must deal with Congress, and that inevitably requires compromise. Foreign policy also requires a lot of negotiation and compromise. Shouldn't we be testing their communication/diplomacy skills instead?

The best president isn't one who holds the same principles as the me, it's the one who is willing to put all his/her effort into listening and fighting for what the American public wants. If the public is stupid, then the country should burn. It would serve as a wakeup call for the citizens to get the water out of their heads. If the public is smart, then a good president should be able to channel that pressure to Congress.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:27 am UTC

Someone has already suggested this, but roll the dice or pick someone out of a drum. If they can't do any better maybe they can't do any worse. Of course that leaves the bureaucracies in charge.

User avatar
ThirdParty
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:53 pm UTC
Location: USA

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ThirdParty » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:38 am UTC

Cradarc wrote:The best president isn't one who holds the same principles as the me, it's the one who is willing to put all his/her effort into listening and fighting for what the American public wants. If the public is stupid, then the country should burn.
I disagree. I want a President who's smart enough to take the resources available to that office--classified intelligence information, whole agencies full of advisors, etc.--and use them to select better policies than I, as someone whose full-time job is something else, can hope to come up with.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:08 am UTC

ThirdParty wrote:I disagree. I want a President who's smart enough to take the resources available to that office--classified intelligence information, whole agencies full of advisors, etc.--and use them to select better policies than I, as someone whose full-time job is something else, can hope to come up with.

I agree. Too much populism is a bad thing, which is why I personally dislike the US's politicisation of roles like Sheriff and the Judiciary through direct elections or partisan political appointments.

Certain bureaucratic roles - like, I'd argue, policing, the law, education, healthcare and so on - should be filled through aptitude alone, and should be as independent from political whims and meddling as much as is practicable.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:19 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:To be honest, I'm not that informed about politics. Do any of you know how much power does the POTUS actually have?
I mean, we grill all the candidates on these questions, but at the end of the day, it's Congress that's making the laws. No matter who is in office, they must deal with Congress, and that inevitably requires compromise. Foreign policy also requires a lot of negotiation and compromise. Shouldn't we be testing their communication/diplomacy skills instead?


The veto power is quite significant. I would rate it above even a senator's power, though of course it's not quite apples to apples. But yeah, the president alone has some sharp limits on his power. If there's enough folks in congress that want something different than him, he's limited in many regards.

There's also of course, executive orders, appointments of cabinet members, appointment of supreme court positions. All of these things are very significant, and the SC in particular is a big deal, with long term effects.

sardia wrote:Take lessons from the NRA. Their civic engagement is superb despite their recent fundamentalism.


Their civic engagement IS excellent. But it's not really a "despite". Engaging with the base only really works if you actually represent their desires. Otherwise, it merely exposes you to lots of backlash. The internet has some really good examples of this...folks trying to talk to fans/supporters/etc can get highly varied responses depending on how much the message matches supporter desire.

So, yeah, civic engagement is great if representing them is your goal. If, say, gaining power, and getting money from big donors is instead your goal, then...it may be counterproductive to try engaging with everyone. The added publicity for things that not all supporters like might hurt you.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:41 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Cphite, they lie to you because you can't handle the truth. They don't attempt what they promised because it's not practical.


It has nothing to do with being able to "handle" the truth. We know they're lying; it's obvious they're lying. We're just tired of hearing it :D

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:55 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
sardia wrote:Cphite, they lie to you because you can't handle the truth. They don't attempt what they promised because it's not practical.


It has nothing to do with being able to "handle" the truth. We know they're lying; it's obvious they're lying. We're just tired of hearing it :D

Except what's the alternative from the politician's side? Any candidate that tells the unvarnished truth about the realities of popular campaign promises will hit double-zero polling numbers in less than a news cycle.

So by that measure, to overuse the movie phrase, the public can't handle the truth. In collective they won't vote for any candidate that tells it.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DaBigCheez and 25 guests