Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2016 Election. Policies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Biscuit
    replied
    Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
    This election really comes down to who is likely to be worse
    Worst case scenarios
    Trump: 4 years of dysfunctional government coupled with gaffes of various sorts
    Clinton: 4 years of endemic corruption coupled with needless foreign wars
    I'll take the former....
    I feel like a lot of people are voting out of fear, but basically the same idea.

    Some of my older friends and family are so afraid of the other candidate that they are making arguments for why Trump didn't assault anyone, or justifying his behavior. The thing is: that's not who they are. They're just so scared of Hilary.

    Its been a rough fall with the new job, major shake-ups in the Navy, and unexpected financial requirements. I just want the election to be over. We're either way. Its just a matter of who it comes from.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    At least with Trump, at the end of his term the White House silverware and china will still be there...

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    Trump sucks but my vote for him is not based in racism, simple mindedness, facism or any other evil based source unless you accept that the evil that drove me to this vote is hillary.

    I see far less racism, fascism and simple mindedness coming from the right than I do from the left and have voted accordingly.
    I haven't said the right is free from any of these, just that they aren't trying to make it government policy.

    By way of example when the chicago chief of police was fired earlier this year it was people on the left who demanded that the new chief must be black. It was people on the left who were upset when a hispanic was named instead.
    When BO gave up his senate seat in Illinois, it was people in the left who argued that the seat must be given to a black man and should remain a "black senate seat".
    There's the flip side of the argument: establishment political types -- as exemplified by the Clinton's -- make only a pretense of responding to the interests of their voters, and in reality respond only to their own interests. They play fast and loose with otherwise laudable notions like "equality," "inclusiveness," etc. Republicans are just as guilty: see what "responsibility" has become in the hands of NJ Gov Chris Christie. The reality is that, in their hands, these ideals are reduced to punchlines. Trump, playing the angry outsider, is speaking to a lot of people's frustrations with traditional political types, who feel -- justifiably -- that the political elites have never offered their voters anything more substantive than lip service.

    Nevertheless, it can't be ignored that, by bellowing on about "Mexican rapists" and "walls," Trump is appealing to a frankly racialist sentiment common to a certain milieu. I'm sure that doesn't apply to you personally. Indeed, you may find yourself holding your nose when he goes into such tirades, but it can't be denied that a significant share of Trump's rhetoric appears designed to appeal to some very base sentiments.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    The tradition of the legislature holding "the power of the purse-strings" comes from your lot. If I recall correctly, it was the Stuart monarch's insistence that Parliament pass his tax proposal instantly at his say-so, and when they balked the monarch went and ordered his collectors to increase their take without a parliamentary authorizing act, that helped precipitate the English Civil War, no?

    As for liars, you ain't seen nothing in all of the British Isles as corrupt or as venal as Albany NY: long celebrated as the world's most dysfunctional democracy. We've probably got more legislators in stir than we have in their seats in the State Capitol. Your MPs wouldn't last a week in Albany. They're mere Boy Scouts compared to the real pros.



    Trump is a symptom, not a disease. The disease is simplemindedness. It's a brew of nostalgia, xenophobia, and fascism. "Wouldn't our country be a nicer place if the Darkies just remembered their place, just like in the 1950s." I see that the UK is experiencing a fair share of that crap nowadays as well, just like your former colonies. Bear in mind that fascism can express a significant degree of economic populism and/or socialism, as well, therefore explaining how the English version of this tripe can maintain that Maggie Thatcher closed Speke and other such nonsense.

    Maybe we're not separated by a common language after all.


    Trump sucks but my vote for him is not based in racism, simple mindedness, facism or any other evil based source unless you accept that the evil that drove me to this vote is hillary.

    I see far less racism, fascism and simple mindedness coming from the right than I do from the left and have voted accordingly.
    I haven't said the right is free from any of these, just that they aren't trying to make it government policy.

    By way of example when the chicago chief of police was fired earlier this year it was people on the left who demanded that the new chief must be black. It was people on the left who were upset when a hispanic was named instead.
    When BO gave up his senate seat in Illinois, it was people in the left who argued that the seat must be given to a black man and should remain a "black senate seat".

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
    Ours just lie. They save law breaking for after getting elected when they file there first expenses claim. So if the president does not set taxes what does he have control over that makes the job worth doing. Apart from deciding to launch all the nuclear weapons at once and spell his name in radio active fire across Australia?
    The tradition of the legislature holding "the power of the purse-strings" comes from your lot. If I recall correctly, it was the Stuart monarch's insistence that Parliament pass his tax proposal instantly at his say-so, and when they balked the monarch went and ordered his collectors to increase their take without a parliamentary authorizing act, that helped precipitate the English Civil War, no?

    As for liars, you ain't seen nothing in all of the British Isles as corrupt or as venal as Albany NY: long celebrated as the world's most dysfunctional democracy. We've probably got more legislators in stir than we have in their seats in the State Capitol. Your MPs wouldn't last a week in Albany. They're mere Boy Scouts compared to the real pros.

    Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
    Do you sense that the game has changed with Trump. The BBC seems to be saying that there are a lot of people voting for him who basically wouldn't have voted in previous years to an extent you haven't just got an unknown candidate. You've got an unknown electorate as well?
    Trump is a symptom, not a disease. The disease is simplemindedness. It's a brew of nostalgia, xenophobia, and fascism. "Wouldn't our country be a nicer place if the Darkies just remembered their place, just like in the 1950s." I see that the UK is experiencing a fair share of that crap nowadays as well, just like your former colonies. Bear in mind that fascism can express a significant degree of economic populism and/or socialism, as well, therefore explaining how the English version of this tripe can maintain that Maggie Thatcher closed Speke and other such nonsense.

    Maybe we're not separated by a common language after all.

    Leave a comment:


  • DARKPLACE
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    Pretty much. For one thing, all candidates promise things that, constitutionally, that can't deliver. Changes in taxes, for example, must be enacted by Congress. The executive alone can not change tax policy -- yet every presidential candidate makes all kinds of promises with regards to taxes. Are the voters dumb enough to swallow it? It only stands to reason that the great majority of voters took the same civics classes that I did, so they should know what a president can and cannot do -- yet even the talking heads in the Fourth Estate almost never declare a candidate's campaign platform unconstitutional. The shame of it is, both within the precincts of the media and the general electorate, we're no longer interested in laws, but in personalities. For all the smoke and noise, US political campaigns are not at all particularly revealing. They've proven to be a monumental waste of time..
    Ours just lie. They save law breaking for after getting elected when they file there first expenses claim. So if the president does not set taxes what does he have control over that makes the job worth doing. Apart from deciding to launch all the nuclear weapons at once and spell his name in radio active fire across Australia?



    Like a previous poster said, it seems pretty unlikely that the US House of Representatives will change parties as a result of this election. The GOP's margin may change, but they'll still hold a majority after 8 Nov. The US Senate, on the other hand is much tougher to call. Currently the GOP enjoys an eight seat majority. According to Real Clear Politics, there are are 16 Senate seats in play, of which six are currently too close to call. It's conceivable that the "top of the ticket" (ie the presidential candidates) can influence some down-ticket races via the "coat-tail" effect, but under the present chaotic conditions, that can only be discerned on a race-by-race basis. If I were to guess, I'd say that Hillary's candidacy will prove more beneficial to various Democrats than will Trump's to various Republicans, but I'm no expert, and even if I were, this election cycle has pretty much broken all the rules, so even the experts have been left slack-jawed by this year's race.
    Do you sense that the game has changed with Trump. The BBC seems to be saying that there are a lot of people voting for him who basically wouldn't have voted in previous years to an extent you haven't just got an unknown candidate. You've got an unknown electorate as well?

    Leave a comment:


  • DARKPLACE
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    A complete shift is very unlikely. Trump has an expiration date; 8 years at max.

    Unity is the GOPs byword, and if Trump wins the Party will seek to achieve unity with Trump.

    How that works out depends on both sides of the equation, but both sides loath the DNP, so there is plenty of common ground.

    An interest issue is that if Trump wins he is relatively unencumbered by contributions, so he will actually choose most of his own cabinet.

    Clinton's key cabinet seats have already been sold to finance her campaign.
    I get what you are saying. It's just if you look at what happened to the Labour party in the. UK it did a near complete 180 degree turn in the space of two months, rendering itself nearly unelectable in the process, but that's a by the way. I better apologise for finding the whole thing fascinating. US politics for most of my life has been a bit boring? With very few in the way of surprises. Damn if you are not excelling yourselves this year.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    After paying the Intertest on The Debt, what's left of current revenue we spend to our own desire and what goes on the National Credit Card? The USA is basically broke and it's something of guess how long our politicians can play this game, but ...

    Clinton and the Democrats come from the wealth redistribusion~Taker side of the economic equation, so don't look for policies that will grow wealth, GDP, or show real signifigant economic gain. If you are among those looking to get what you can before it's gone, here's your hope.

    Trump has some experience and success at making/creating wealth so here's the candidate and party mostly likely to find a way to help the economy produce wealth, grow GDP, aquaire health, etc. Not a 100% quarantee and no way to gauge by how much this early on, but at least not the negative score most likey from his opposition.

    Big question unanawered is how long these figures can continue to grow;
    http://www.usdebtclock.org/
    Great post!
    I'd say that covers it, except for one thing; the US is not just broke, but a debtor nation*. The really scary part is that it isn't really the foreign nations that we owe, it is the internal framework of the larger part of the debt... an incredibly shaky house of cards that nobody dares to touch.

    * Yeah, I know, who isn't, right? Even the Saudis are over-extended now. How the hell did it get like this?

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    Unity is the GOPs byword, and if Trump wins the Party will seek to achieve unity with Trump.
    All else being equal, I'd agree -- but things are not equal, at least not this election cycle. US legislators in general, but US Senators in particular, can not be bullied. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom delay likened his job to "herding cats," and historically, that's been the case. By the same token, Senators can blunt a President's program very, very effectively. They did it to FDR when he tried to pack the Supreme Court. Southern Senators did it to every 20th century civil rights bill right through 1957. More recently Chuck Schumer did it to Barack Obama and Eric Holder when they proposed trying GITMO terror detainees in NYC. Given Trump's . . . . prickliness, I can't see him enjoying a very long honeymoon with a Congress of either party. The traditional span for a president to enjoy real traction with Congress is given as "100 days." Trump's been such a hard-on that I'd be shocked if he gets more than 100 hours, with Democrats or Republicans in charge of Congress.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
    You could end up with a president and his party at war or a complete shift within the republican party to bring it into line with whatever Trumps policy is.
    A complete shift is very unlikely. Trump has an expiration date; 8 years at max.

    Unity is the GOPs byword, and if Trump wins the Party will seek to achieve unity with Trump.

    How that works out depends on both sides of the equation, but both sides loath the DNP, so there is plenty of common ground.

    An interest issue is that if Trump wins he is relatively unencumbered by contributions, so he will actually choose most of his own cabinet.

    Clinton's key cabinet seats have already been sold to finance her campaign.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
    Cheers mate. So basically the US isn't going to know for sure till who ever gets elected tells them?
    Pretty much. For one thing, all candidates promise things that, constitutionally, that can't deliver. Changes in taxes, for example, must be enacted by Congress. The executive alone can not change tax policy -- yet every presidential candidate makes all kinds of promises with regards to taxes. Are the voters dumb enough to swallow it? It only stands to reason that the great majority of voters took the same civics classes that I did, so they should know what a president can and cannot do -- yet even the talking heads in the Fourth Estate almost never declare a candidate's campaign platform unconstitutional. The shame of it is, both within the precincts of the media and the general electorate, we're no longer interested in laws, but in personalities. For all the smoke and noise, US political campaigns are not at all particularly revealing. They've proven to be a monumental waste of time.

    Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
    So what's the story with Congress? Which way do you see that jumping? Because from outside it looks like your best result would be a deadlock? President from one party and Congress dominated by the opposition?
    Like a previous poster said, it seems pretty unlikely that the US House of Representatives will change parties as a result of this election. The GOP's margin may change, but they'll still hold a majority after 8 Nov. The US Senate, on the other hand is much tougher to call. Currently the GOP enjoys an eight seat majority. According to Real Clear Politics, there are are 16 Senate seats in play, of which six are currently too close to call. It's conceivable that the "top of the ticket" (ie the presidential candidates) can influence some down-ticket races via the "coat-tail" effect, but under the present chaotic conditions, that can only be discerned on a race-by-race basis. If I were to guess, I'd say that Hillary's candidacy will prove more beneficial to various Democrats than will Trump's to various Republicans, but I'm no expert, and even if I were, this election cycle has pretty much broken all the rules, so even the experts have been left slack-jawed by this year's race.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    After paying the Intertest on The Debt, what's left of current revenue we spend to our own desire and what goes on the National Credit Card? The USA is basically broke and it's something of guess how long our politicians can play this game, but ...

    Clinton and the Democrats come from the wealth redistribusion~Taker side of the economic equation, so don't look for policies that will grow wealth, GDP, or show real signifigant economic gain. If you are among those looking to get what you can before it's gone, here's your hope.

    Trump has some experience and success at making/creating wealth so here's the candidate and party mostly likely to find a way to help the economy produce wealth, grow GDP, aquaire health, etc. Not a 100% quarantee and no way to gauge by how much this early on, but at least not the negative score most likey from his opposition.

    Big question unanawered is how long these figures can continue to grow;
    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    Leave a comment:


  • Jannie
    replied
    Hillary Clinton has an official website at https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ where her issues are gone into.

    This appears to be Donald Trump’s campaign site: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

    This may not be a neutral site but I do like AARP magazine and bulletin so here is a summation of each candidate’s positions
    http://www.aarp.org/politics-society...cmp=AE-HP-WFY1

    Leave a comment:


  • DARKPLACE
    replied
    Originally posted by 17thfabn View Post
    The U.S. House of Representatives appears to be staying under Republican control.

    The U.S. Senator looks like it could go either way.

    So if the Democrat Mrs. Clinton doesn't lose she would face an opposition Congress and possibly also a Senate controlled by the other party.

    If the trumpian party candidate doesn't lose he would face a congress controlled by a party that he is theoretically a part of and a senate that is in the hands of either the opposition or a party that is theoretically on his side.

    Control of the senate is a bigger deal because they have more power than the house.
    Is there any chance of a swing to the republicans because of Trump do you think? I realise that the bulk of the party old guard seem to want to field any other candidate other than Trump. But from what I see from here Trump seems to be attracting the people who had stopped voting or become disenchanted with the political process. Do you think that that could have a knock on effect in that people might be going to vote for the Republicans because they see it as Trumps party?

    You could end up with a president and his party at war or a complete shift within the republican party to bring it into line with whatever Trumps policy is.

    Leave a comment:


  • 17thfabn
    replied
    Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
    So what's the story with Congress? Which way do you see that jumping? Because from outside it looks like your best result would be a deadlock? President from one party and Congress dominated by the opposition?
    The U.S. House of Representatives appears to be staying under Republican control.

    The U.S. Senator looks like it could go either way.

    So if the Democrat Mrs. Clinton doesn't lose she would face an opposition Congress and possibly also a Senate controlled by the other party.

    If the trumpian party candidate doesn't lose he would face a congress controlled by a party that he is theoretically a part of and a senate that is in the hands of either the opposition or a party that is theoretically on his side.

    Control of the senate is a bigger deal because they have more power than the house.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X