2016 Presidential Race

Status
Not open for further replies.
@lindy has previously implied that the current "true outsider" is an idiot.

I, too, am therefore quite interested in such a case.
 
lindy said:
I honestly don't think the majority of voters give of shit of who he's banged.
Click to expand...
Does the average voter care, then, about who Bill Clinton banged? Trump is spending a good amount of time "not talking about it" and "being very proud that he didn't talk about it". Good use of paralipsis, although the strict definition implies a brief mention, not 60 tweets and soundbites.

Trump may have the world's freshest policy (he doesn't, but also thanks to @compforce for the policy link, it took me a while to get through it all, great resource) and the most intelligence (nope) and may in fact be the best candidate. I happily lay that out as a possibility because 1, I am not a political expert and 2, I can't see into the future.

But if you look at his past week, it's pure Trump 101. Perform poorly. Complain. Change positions. Take to social media to attack those in his sights that day. Act childishly. Take the focus from his own policies, his own message, and make it easy for his opponents to frustrate and enrage him until he lashes out.

You're over here talking about U.S Economy, jobs, security- on behalf of the guy that's been engaged in a Twitter war with a beauty pageant contestant and bringing up 20 year old marriage issues like that's the best way to get elected president. And what's worse is that there are (IMO) reasonably intelligent human beings, some close friends, that are actually serious about voting him into the presidency.

It's like I am taking crazy pills.
 
RackMaster said:
Hillary brought up Trump calling the pageant queen fat 20 years ago during the debate instead of discussing real policy. What's the difference?
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose the Hillary supporter (not me for the record) would say that she deviated from the issues to highlight Trumps long misogynistic record, and ties that into the whole "Trump is unfit for office" schtick she's working. She's making that point one of the issues and focusing on the women vote.

Bringing up Bill Clinton'a infidelity has zero political benefit other than mud slinging. I guess you could try what has been tried already and look at Hillary's treatment of the mistresss after the fact- but playing the "vengeful partner exacting revenge" card really doesn't hurt Hillary. It actually helps her in the eyes of women and jilted lovers everywhere.

Bottom line- I guess the difference is that Hillary is actually tying Trumps treatment of women for decades into a cohesive narrative about his temperament. Which Trump himself is all too willing to perpetuate as more videos (the playboy video that recently surfaced) and more stories come out.

Trump is talking about bringing up Bill Clinton's trysts simply for the sake of doing so, to be sensationalist.

He's doing it for the ratings and in retaliation to the outing of his obvious shortfalls and missteps. He's done it literally the entire campaign.
 
amlove21 said:
Does the average voter care, then, about who Bill Clinton banged? Trump is spending a good amount of time "not talking about it" and "being very proud that he didn't talk about it". Good use of paralipsis, although the strict definition implies a brief mention, not 60 tweets and soundbites.

Trump may have the world's freshest policy (he doesn't, but also thanks to @compforce for the policy link, it took me a while to get through it all, great resource) and the most intelligence (nope) and may in fact be the best candidate. I happily lay that out as a possibility because 1, I am not a political expert and 2, I can't see into the future.

But if you look at his past week, it's pure Trump 101. Perform poorly. Complain. Change positions. Take to social media to attack those in his sights that day. Act childishly. Take the focus from his own policies, his own message, and make it easy for his opponents to frustrate and enrage him until he lashes out.

You're over here talking about U.S Economy, jobs, security- on behalf of the guy that's been engaged in a Twitter war with a beauty pageant contestant and bringing up 20 year old marriage issues like that's the best way to get elected president. And what's worse is that there are (IMO) reasonably intelligent human beings, some close friends, that are actually serious about voting him into the presidency.

It's like I am taking crazy pills.
Click to expand...

The average voter most likely doesn't care what Bill did to whomever in the Oval Office but rather his direct involvement in the obstruction of justice, which even the House agreed occurred. The Democrats want to make Trump's comments about Clinton's affairs about Bill but what he said, had you cared to listen/read, were about Hillary's attack on Bill's multiple girlfriends. She has no leg to stand on promoting women's rights when she has REPEATEDLY blamed the victims of Bill's sexual advances.

Deathy McDeath said:
This is something I've been giving a lot of thought to lately, and think it warrants its own discussion. That is, could a true outsider (which I don't count Obama as since he had a tenure in the Illinois State Senate, as well as the US Senate) be an effective president? The office was originally envisioned as a purely executive (that is, to say, managerial) function in article II of the constitution, but suffice it to say the office has grown beyond the scope of that. As it stands now, the Presidency is most definitely a political office, and we've had mostly career politicians in that office in the modern era, with Eisenhower being the notable exception.

That beggars a few questions: what does it take to be an effective politician? It's hard to argue that you can be an effective politician at the national level with just a set of good ideas and some charm. You need connections, both in and out of government, the ability to raise funds, an understanding of the political game, and a strong political cachet. I would argue that a modern president really can't function strictly as an executive and still fulfill their campaign promises. A modern president not only has to write law (to be introduced in congress), but influence bills and resolutions being considered by congress. That requires either a lot of favors from existing congressional representatives, or the ability to promise/browbeat legislators into accepting your ideas (ala LBJ and the Civil Rights Act). From this we can see that just having a bunch of good ideas for the country isn't the only factor in being an effective president.

I think it takes a strong negotiator vice someone with direct personal connections. It's funny you bring up LBJ because I was too! He was a model powerful statesman who knew when to pressure and when to sweet talk. I do think Presidents are successful and failures based on their staff. GWOT was different under Bush and Obama: good idea, poor execution in my opinion. I think the President, as the party leader, has tremendous influence over which bills are introduced and, just as important, when but I also think everything is up for negotiation. I find it odd Obama would rather negotiate with a foreign government than with our own Congress or even the American people. Did he tell us how important JCPOA was? Immigration? Pick a topic. I'm disgusted that he has so much contempt for Americans. I'm also tired of being called a racist because I don't like his policies. I don't give a shit what a person's ethnic origin is and I'm confident that most Americans are the same. Please don't lecture me about how racism exists. I drilled for 8 years in central Mississippi: it does and it goes both ways.

Can an outsider affect upcoming legislation when they have no favors to call in and uncertain promises to make? That's debatable. I think that one of the reasons that Obama encountered so much congressional opposition in his first term is that while he was versed in political gamesmanship from his time in the Illinois senate and US senate, he didn't have those established relationships with legislators that would've allowed him to push through significant legislation (such as the ACA) without the level of opposition that we saw. Had Hillary won (or any experienced Democrat for that matter), and introduced the ACA in the exact same form, I'm confident that it probably would've gone through much more smoothly. Would it have avoided the government shutdown of 2013, which was largely predicated on opposition to the ACA? That's also debatable. After all, guys like Ted Cruz were almost total political neophytes at the time of the shutdown, so it's possible that presidential influence would not have been sufficient to sway them. However, it makes for some interesting 'What if?' thinking.

Again, I don't think POTUS' success is based on his personal contacts and ability to "give/get" from Congress but rather the Party's ability to deliver as necessary. Regardless if Obama had the political experience in his first term, the Democrat leadership in Congress DEFINITELY did. We all remember Pelosi's crap about "we need to pass it in order to know what's in it". How in hell does she still have a job? ACA is fucked up 3 ways to Sunday and when we hear about it, it's ONLY rainbows and unicorns. Jesus, Mr. President, tell us the truth!!! ACA is a GREAT FUCKING IDEA but managed in only a way that DC shitheads could and the "law" is so flawed. If it was great, Congress, USMIL, and all Federal employees would be on it. If I recall the 2013 shutdown was caused because the Speaker and POTUS would not talk to each other so the decision was to push the pain to the American people. W...T...F??? I believe that Obama cares more about his legacy than the American people. I hope that he proves me wrong.

It also begs the normative question: should the presidency return to a purely executive function? Strict constructionists think so, as do the libertarians, and even some democrats. To be honest, I'm not sure where I stand on this, and I've used up all of my posting words for the day. @lindy I'm pretty sure we know where you stand on this. Why don't you lay out your case for a true outsider president?

I absolutely think POTUS should be an executive and leave the lawmaking to Congress, regardless of which party is in power. I hate the idea that the Constitution is a living document. If POTUS, Congress, or a State wants to make a change, SELL IT!! Just don't tell me that the Founders never intended that Americans would carry semi-auto rifles/pistols so the USG needs to regulate who can and cannot defend themselves. The Founders never intended to have a 15 year war without a declaration but using a War Powers-type act. HUH???

I think our debt is at a very dangerous point and we need to take some extreme measures like get an outsider who will hear how Washington really works and reply "That's stupid. It's cheaper, more efficient, etc if we do X." I fear the next POTUS will reply "How can I profit from this...again?"

We're at $20 Trillion in debt and GDP is forecast at an optimistic 2-3%. In order to survive, we need a fresh set of eyes on the problem and I think a businessman is the right one for the job but I wish it were not the current one on the ballot. There is no possible way to tax our way out of this amount of debt while increasing or even keeping current levels of entitlements. However, I think the Republican voter is tired of DC politics and that's why Trump won the primaries. He's a pretty crappy candidate but I seriously believe that the GOP will ensure THEIR polices will move forward vice just Trump's ideas of how the US should function. As I've said before, I think the Republican party agrees with MOST of my personal politics but not all of it.

We have grown accustomed to too much silly shit from DC. We need an azimuth check and course correction. The last thing we need is another Clinton in the White House or four more years of stupid fiscal spending of monies we do not have.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lindy said:
The Democrats want to make Trump's comments about Clinton's affairs about Bill but what he said, had you cared to listen/read, were about Hillary's attack on Bill's multiple girlfriends.
Click to expand...
In my previous comment I mentioned, specifically, using the tactic of "Hillary's treatment of former girlfriends/mistresses" and how it wasn't working. This NY Times piece lays it out pretty well. Your bolded comes across as condescending.

This tactic isn't working. Trump can try to square this circle and paint Hillary as this terrifying bully, this attacker of the abused that actually hates women- it's not happening like that. It may be getting hits on web pages, but he looks like a street preacher screaming at passers by unimpressed by his fervor. Trump can insinuate all he wants about outing more information, saying he's "holding back" by not saying this or that or whatever- it's flat. All the while, Hillary lays out quip after quip.

And if Trump brings this up at the next debate- jesus. All she has to say is, "You know, like many Americans, my life isn't perfect. My marriage isn't. We lived out every couple's worst nightmare on live television. I was hurt. I am truly sorry for my actions and everyone involved, but through that experience I learned, and grew smarter, and I am now better equipped to carry the standard forward for women everywhere."

Trump spent 3 days talking about a former beauty pageant winner's alleged sex tape (?) and how Hillary treated her husbands mistresses. In reaction to Machada's claims that Trump is a misogynist and a mean person to women, 37 days out from the election, Trump responds to allegations of maltreatment of women by....treating women poorly?

The simple fact of the matter is that Trump needs to stop with this inane bullshit. Hillary is winning this election by just letting Trump get in his own way.
 
amlove21 said:
The simple fact of the matter is that Trump needs to stop with this inane bullshit. Hillary is winning this election by just letting Trump get in his own way.
Click to expand...

I think that's part of her strategy because if Trump takes the stage and the focus is on 3am tweets, she's not talking about her policies and plans.

This election has become a very long Jerry Springer show and neither side has the courage and deep routed patriotism to make this election about the American ideals of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Instead, it's apparently about any/all the "isms", small hands, tax returns, fainting, and what the Keystone Cops can definitively prove.

I know this about the debate but SOMEONE locked that thread despite two more debates coming down the pike.

SNL nailed it!!!


TLDR20 said:
The New York Times - Timeline | Facebook

Such a great business man.
Click to expand...

To lose a "little"in order to save an ass ton in taxes...is a BAD thing??? Outstanding business model in my opinion.

(Little lost being relative to the overall long term gain.)

What did Senator Clinton and her colleagues do about that ridiculous part of the IRS code?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lindy said:
I know this about the debate but SOMEONE locked that thread despite two more debates coming down the pike.
Click to expand...

I had assumed my debate thread would be locked within a week or so after the debates had been broadcast. My plan was to start a separate thread for the upcoming two debates as they happen. Hopefully that will allow for good conversation specific to the debate talking points in one thread, and our railing on how much we hate both candidates in the regular presidential race thread.
 
lindy said:
To lose a "little"in order to save an ass ton in taxes...is a BAD thing??? Outstanding business model in my opinion.

(Little lost being relative to the overall long term gain.)

What did Senator Clinton and her colleagues do about that ridiculous part of the IRS code?
Click to expand...

Lol almost a billion dollars.

TLDR20 said:
Lol almost a billion dollars.
Click to expand...

He was is worth maybe 4, so losing a quarter of his wealth to avoid paying 50 million in taxes. Seems like a shitty move to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TLDR20 said:
Lol almost a billion dollars.
Click to expand...

Any capitalist would gladly lose (write off expenses) $916mil in order to not pay taxes for 18 years. Business write offs include many operating expenses such as rent, wages, insurance, supplies, etc.

Any business owner who pays less (insert noun here), either hordes the cash (stupid idea with such low rates but still enables banks to loan more money), invests in X, expands current business, or buys Y. In ALL those cases, wealth is transferred thereby stimulating an economy, which is based on consumption.

Our economy is based on exchanging goods and services for money. Giving away free shit (TARP, cash for clunkers, appliances, sub-prime loans, etc) creates an economic liability.
 
The $916 million loss certainly could have eliminated any federal income taxes Mr. Trump otherwise would have owed on the $50,000 to $100,000 he was paid for each episode of “The Apprentice,” or the roughly $45 million he was paid between 1995 and 2009 when he was chairman or chief executive of the publicly traded company he created to assume ownership of his troubled Atlantic City casinos. Ordinary investors in the new company, meanwhile, saw the value of their shares plunge to 17 cents from $35.50, while scores of contractors went unpaid for work on Mr. Trump’s casinos and casino bondholders received pennies on the dollar.

I think the above is more telling than how much he paid in taxes.
 
TLDR20 said:
The $916 million loss certainly could have eliminated any federal income taxes Mr. Trump otherwise would have owed on the $50,000 to $100,000 he was paid for each episode of “The Apprentice,” or the roughly $45 million he was paid between 1995 and 2009 when he was chairman or chief executive of the publicly traded company he created to assume ownership of his troubled Atlantic City casinos. Ordinary investors in the new company, meanwhile, saw the value of their shares plunge to 17 cents from $35.50, while scores of contractors went unpaid for work on Mr. Trump’s casinos and casino bondholders received pennies on the dollar.

I think the above is more telling than how much he paid in taxes.
Click to expand...

That's the great thing about the IRS laws, written by Congress! Trump's own salary from Trump Industries is actually a business expense where as his income from The Apprentice was akin to a second job, generating total profit.

Imagine if the USG could simply write off the majority of our liabilities (social entitlements, deficit, etc) and just collect income via taxes (or EPA fines).

I understand how Americans think that Trump is one of the 1%-ers who don't pay their fair share but he's just following the rules.
 
lindy said:
To lose a "little"in order to save an ass ton in taxes...is a BAD thing??? Outstanding business model in my opinion.

(Little lost being relative to the overall long term gain.)

What did Senator Clinton and her colleagues do about that ridiculous part of the IRS code?
Click to expand...
Here's the bigger problem- I am supposed to believe Trump is an "outsider"? That in the two candidates we have, Hillary is the "establishment" and Trump is this rogue figure that thumbs his nose at the man?

GTFO. The dude is a billionaire that exploits the system to be excused from what the average American is legally required to do and then has the audacity to say "That makes me smart".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Question Question
crossroads/mid life crisis
Replies
5
Views
496
Muppet
Muppet
R.Caerbannog
Economic shifts in Central America and China
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
Marauder06
"Selfie Culture"
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
AWP
AWP
Marauder06
Team Rubicon
Replies
7
Views
884
x SF med
x SF med
Blizzard
New Officers: Are We Getting Our Best and Brightest?
Replies
9
Views
960
Devildoc
Devildoc
Back
Top