2016 Presidential Horse Race

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[woolybug25]

I completely understand your frustration. I'm not a fan of Trump either. OTOH, Bernie & Hillary are even less palatable. One's an out-of-touch with reality radical loon and the other is completely devoid of character, integrity and honesty. This is the worst slate of candidates in my lifetime and none of the leading ones are fit for the job.

Not to defend Trump at all, but he's no worse than (and not particularly different from) most of the leading Dem candidates from the past 50 years. You could accurately call most of them a lying, flip-flopping on every issue, fake concern, bully, fake Christian, class warfare mongering, fear mongering, fraud of a candidate too. They appeal to an equally uneducated, mindless, no-thinking group of sheep who'll believe anyone who tells them what they want to hear, promises to solve all the world's problems, give them everything they want, and constantly make promises that there's absolutely no way they can keep.

The truth is that candidates from both sides (and especially in this year's election) will say anything, promise anything, pander to the worst elements of our character, lie like mad, flip-flop on any issue if the polls say it will help them, and shovel their absolutely unworkable and even harmful bs to the lowest-minded of their base just to get their vote. Neither Trump nor Hillary nor Bernie nor most of the main candidates from elections past believe half of what they say nor intend to ever keep half of their promises, but it panders to the worst of human emotions & character, appeals on an emotional level to the least educated and able to think elements of our society, and it gets the votes... and we keep rewarding them for doing all this by voting for them.

This is what boggles my mind with Trump supporters. He is clearly worse than ANY candidate, especially if you are a conservative. This man will rule like a tyrant, plain and simple. There is zero evidence in anything he has done to prove otherwise. In fact, he has promised this very thing throughout his campaign.

Republicans are going to blindly follow this man into destruction of their own party. This myth that other politicians are worse, as their mantra. It simply isn't true. A Clinton presidency isn't going to doom the Republican party. A Bernie presidency isn't going to tarnish an entire political philosophy. A Trump presidency will literally kill conservatism. He will be the face of conservatism, despite not even being one.

It's shocking to me that people don't see this. It's plain as anything i've seen in my life.

 

[RDU Irish]

I should have added, "no offense to our Bama friends".

But I will add that it boggles my kind that this lying, flip-flopping on every issue, fake conservative, bully, fake Christian, Hillary supporting, sexist, racist, fear mongering, fraud of a candidate is getting so many votes. He's built an entire campaign centered around hatred and fear mongering, and his mindless sheep are lapping it up. When it comes to policy, he is literally a dumb-ass who simply says he'll 'make better deals' lol. His knowledge on issues is an inch deep and a mile wide, while every single other candidate can delve deep into their actual policy plans. And yet with every stupid/hate-filled thing he says, he grabs tons of new, ignorant voters.

It sickens me.

The mile wide part is a little bit generous, maybe the inch deep too. However, I think Obama made this monster.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

This is what boggles my mind with Trump supporters. He is clearly worse than ANY candidate, especially if you are a conservative. This man will rule like a tyrant, plain and simple. There is zero evidence in anything he has done to prove otherwise. In fact, he has promised this very thing throughout his campaign.

Republicans are going to blindly follow this man into destruction of their own party. This myth that other politicians are worse, as their mantra. It simply isn't true. A Clinton presidency isn't going to doom the Republican party. A Bernie presidency isn't going to tarnish an entire political philosophy. A Trump presidency will literally kill conservatism. He will be the face of conservatism, despite not even being one.

It's shocking to me that people don't see this. It's plain as anything i've seen in my life.

I agree. There is a lot of truth to the "lesser of two evils" and "all politicians are liars" etc. But with Trump, it's on a level that rivals Mussolini. No other candidate, on either side, comes close to being like that.

HRC would be a horrible, horrible president IMO. But she's ten times better than Trump. That shouldn't be debatable (even if you hate her).

 

[Buster Bluth]

This is what boggles my mind with Trump supporters. He is clearly worse than ANY candidate...

I disagree.

 

[RDU Irish]

This is what boggles my mind with Trump supporters. He is clearly worse than ANY candidate, especially if you are a conservative. This man will rule like a tyrant, plain and simple. There is zero evidence in anything he has done to prove otherwise. In fact, he has promised this very thing throughout his campaign.

Republicans are going to blindly follow this man into destruction of their own party. This myth that other politicians are worse, as their mantra. It simply isn't true. A Clinton presidency isn't going to doom the Republican party. A Bernie presidency isn't going to tarnish an entire political philosophy. A Trump presidency will literally kill conservatism. He will be the face of conservatism, despite not even being one.

It's shocking to me that people don't see this. It's plain as anything i've seen in my life.

I'm not sure anyone labels him a conservative. Pure opportunist more likely. The fallacy of the Rs is this calling card of "conservatism" which is taken different directions depending on who is being pandered to.

If Trump is half as bad as you think, he would be impeached in six months. He won't be protected by half DC, both parties will be after him. More likely - he works the middle ground because he is no dummy and knows that is where the deals can get done. I see how that riles up idealistic conservatives who can't get anything done.

 

[tussin]

I disagree.

Agree but I'm much less worried if Cruz wins the nom. There's absolutely no chance he wins the general election. With Trump, there's also probably no chance, but who knows, crazy things have been happening this entire cycle.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Crap like this is how we'll end up with Donald Trump as President.

Here is a fuller quote:

I mentioned ... to the first lady about medical savings accounts and just right away she said, "We can't do that." And I said, "Well, why?" And she said, "Well, there's two reasons." And I said, "Well, what are they?"

And she said "The first reason is with the medical savings account, people have to act on their own and make their own decisions about health care. And they have to make sure that they get the inoculations and the preventative care that they need, and we just think that people will skip too much because in a medical savings account if you don't spend it, you get to keep it or you can ... accumulate it in a health care account. We just think people will be too focused on saving money and they won't get the care for their children and themselves that they need. We think the government, by saying, 'You have to make this schedule. You have to have your kids in for inoculations here, you have to do a prescreening here, you have to do this' — the government will make better decisions than the people will make, and people will be healthier because of it."

I said, "Well, part of that's an education process. People have to understand that (if) they behave in a certain way, they're going to save money, (with the) preventive medicine issue — you get the prescreenings, if you can inoculate your kids you save money on it. I mean, they're not sick. You save money." She said, "No. We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices ... Government has to make those choices for people."

 

[wizards8507]

I disagree.

Have you watched any one-on-one interviews with Ted Cruz? I've been paying close attention to his mannerisms lately and I'm starting to think that a lot of what others see as "creepy" is a product of him being just off-the-charts socially awkward. The way his shoulders go up and down when he laughs or the way he talks about his wife and kids almost look like he has some borderline autistic affectations.

 

[RDU Irish]

And while Trump talks tough - he also hammers on Iraq. Maybe there are some Rs out there that view $2T "investment" in that area as a horrible idea with negative ROI. War hawks hold the party about as much hostage as the bible bangers.

 

[wizards8507]

Breitbart is coming apart at the seams. They just lost Ben Shapiro over this Trump campaign manager thing. They've been shilling for Trump this whole cycle and now they're collapsing in on themselves like a dying star.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Have you watched any one-on-one interviews with Ted Cruz?

I have, albeit through a pinhole I've punched through thick paper.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

The mile wide part is a little bit generous, maybe the inch deep too. However, I think Obama made this monster.

Can we stop the, blame Obama for everything, shtick?

Also, one could easily argue, as effectively (or more so), that George W is to blame.

Regardless, one president doesn't cause mass delusional political ideologies. So, quit with the "things aren't going well, must be the president" talk.

 

[koonja]

Random. I was inside the Trump hotel in Chicago this weekend. IDK how to explain it but the lobby was the best smelling place I've ever been in. Whatever scent they put in there I need to get in my car.

 

[wizards8507]

Can we stop the, blame Obama for everything, shtick?

Also, one could easily argue, as effectively (or more so), that George W is to blame.

Regardless, one president doesn't cause mass delusional political ideologies. So, quit with the "things aren't going well, must be the president" talk.

Lmao you don't even see the irony here do you? What a clown.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Lmao you don't even see the irony here do you? What a clown.

What irony? I was making a point about how silly it is to overemphasize the importance of the president, while there are 2 other branches of the government that no one rallies around. The economy (domestic and international) is more complex than just one man.

 

[wizards8507]

What irony? I was making a point about how silly it is to overemphasize the importance of the president, while there are 2 other branches of the government that no one rallies around. The economy (domestic and international) is more complex than just one man.

You bitched about people blaming Obama for things and then turned right around and immediately blamed George W. Bush for the same shit.

 

[tussin]

I blame media and Twitter for most of the divisiveness and hatred. We have three different news channels constantly pointing fingers at the other side, talking about how screwed America is, and reporting every negative thing that happens 24/7. It rubbed off on the viewers and now we have a nation of voters who view the world through the hot take lenses of Fox News and MSNBC.

Wish someone would start an entertaining version of CSPAN that reports facts only.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

You bitched about people blaming Obama for things and then turned right around and immediately blamed George W. Bush for the same shit.

Lol.

I was making a point, it would be "just as easy" to say the same thing about Bush.

I wasn't blaming Bush, I was stating that you could blame him, using the same rationale as Obama haters. All types of "president blaming" rhetoric are overdone, and overemphasized. The general public doesn't understand the intricacies of the political and economic landscape... It's easier to blame the "guy in charge".

 

[yankeehater]

Romney was the same thing. Swap deal for leadership and it was just as vague. This is the problem with businessmen in the race. That's on message though. In every other way, Trump is in his own league of reckless bullshit.

And he lost to a guy that ran on "Hope and Change," but never explained what the hope and change was.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I often talk about the need to restore a vision of America as a positive force in the world, a force for liberty and peace. The essential complement to this is having big positive dreams at home as well, of restoring America’s belief in ambition and risk, of innovation and exploration, of free markets and free people. America transformed the 20th century in its image with its unparalleled success. American technology created the modern world while American culture infused it and American values inspired it.

In recent decades that storyline has flipped. The tireless work ethic and spirit of risk-taking and sacrifice have slowly eroded. This complacency was accelerated by the end of the Cold War and it has proved very difficult to overcome in the absence of an existential enemy to compete with. The booming innovation engine of job creation has fallen behind the accelerating pace of technology that replaces workers. The result has been slower growth, stagnant wages, and the steady shift of wealth from labor to capital. In such situations many people turn to the government for help and the siren song of socialism grows louder.

I respect and even like Bernie Sanders. He’s a charismatic speaker and a passionate believer in his cause. He believes deeply in what he is saying, which is more than what can be said about nearly every other 2016 candidate, or about politicians in general. I say this while disagreeing vehemently with nearly everything he says about policy. The “revolution” rhetoric of Senator Sanders has struck a chord with many Americans, especially the young voters who are realizing that their own lives are unlikely to match the opportunities and wealth of their parents and grandparents. They are being left behind in a rapidly changing world. It is a helpless, hopeless feeling.

The problem is with the proposed solutions. A society that relies too heavily on redistributing wealth eventually runs out of wealth to redistribute. The historical record is clear. It’s capitalism that brought billions of people out of poverty in the 20th century. It’s socialism that enslaved them and impoverished them. Of course Senator Sanders does not want to turn America into a totalitarian state like the one I grew up in. But it’s a valuable example of the inevitable failure of a state-run economy and distribution system. (Check in on Venezuela for a more recent example.) Once you give power to the government it is nearly impossible to get it back, and it will be used in ways you cannot expect.

The USSR collapsed because it couldn’t compete over time, despite its massive resources and devout ideology. The Soviets put a man in space before America but couldn’t keep up the pace against an innovating, free-market competitor. My Facebook post went around the world on technology created in America. The networks, the satellites, the software, nearly every ingredient in every mobile device and desktop computer, was invented in the USA. It is not a coincidence that the most capitalist country in the world created all these things. Innovation requires freedom of thought, freedom of capital, and people who believe in changing the world.

Yes, the free market can be cruel and it is by definition unequal. It has winners and losers. It also sparks the spirit of creativity that humanity desperately needs to flourish in our ever-increasing billions. Failure is an essential part of innovation and the free market. Of every 10 new companies, perhaps nine will fail in brutal Darwinian competition. A centrally-planned economy cannot imitate this engine of creative destruction because you cannot plan for failure. You cannot predestine which two college dropouts in a garage will produce the next Apple.

A popular rebuttal is to invoke the socialist leanings of several European countries with high living standards, especially in Scandinavia. Why can’t America be more like happy Denmark, with its high taxes and giant public sector, or at least more like France? Even the more pro-free-market United Kingdom has national health care, after all. First off, comparing relatively small, homogeneous populations to the churning, ocean-spanning American giant is rarely useful. And even the most socialist of the European countries only became wealthy enough to embrace redistribution after free-market success made them rich. Still, why cannot America follow this path if that is what the people want? What is the problem if American voters are willing to accept higher taxes in exchange for greater security in the embrace of the government?
The answer takes us back to all those inventions America has produced decade after decade. As long as Europe had America taking risks, investing ambitiously, attracting the world’s dreamers and entrepreneurs, and yes, being unequal, it could benefit from the results without making the same sacrifices. Add to that the incalculable windfall of not having to spend on national defense thanks to America’s massive investment in a global security umbrella. America doesn’t have the same luxury of coasting on the ambition and sacrifice of another country.

Who will be America’s America? What other nation could attract the brightest students, the biggest investors, the most ambitious entrepreneurs in the same way? Germany? Russia? Japan? China? India? Each may take over leadership in some areas if America continues to falter, but none is equipped to lead the world in innovation the way the United States has since Thomas Edison’s day. None possesses the combination of political and economic freedoms and the human and natural resources required.

The government does have a role in addressing rising inequality. I turn not to Denmark or Venezuela or, god forbid, to the Soviet Union. Instead let us look to the last great battle between labor and capital in America, between public and private power. Just over 100 years ago, President Teddy Roosevelt spoke loudly and used his big stick against some of the world’s largest corporations when they were abusing their monopoly power. His successor, fellow Republican William Taft, continued the antitrust mission, at least initially.

Both men dealt with critics from industry and Wall Street who called their use of government power against them “socialism” and both answered eloquently. In his 1908 State of the Union address, Roosevelt spoke about “the huge wealth that has been accumulated by a few individuals of recent years” being possible “only by the improper use of the modern corporation,” and that these corporations “lend themselves to fraud and oppression than any device yet evolved in the human brain.” He also warned against the accrual of unaccountable political power in the hands of “men who work in secret, whose very names are unknown to the common people.” You can easily imagine Teddy in the bully pulpit today calling for the breakup of the big banks and ending their cozy relationship with Washington.

To give credit, Senator Sanders supports breaking up the giant banking institutions that dominate American finance and politics in a way that would evoke jealousy from John Pierpont Morgan himself. However, Sanders’s socialist policies would replace banks that are too big to fail with a government that is too big to succeed.

Taft warned about exactly this in his 1911 State of the Union. Busting the trusts was to free the market, not to insert the government into it. It was necessary to break up Standard Oil and American Tobacco in order to preserve capitalism, not to institute socialism. Taft said, “The anti-trust act is the expression of the effort of a freedom-loving people to preserve equality of opportunity. It is the result of the confident determination of such a people to maintain their future growth by preserving uncontrolled and unrestricted the enterprise of the individual, his industry, his ingenuity, his intelligence, and his independent courage.”

Bravo! Beautiful words and an even more beautiful sentiment that is deserving of its own Facebook meme! Unfortunately, today’s progressive solution would instead be to raise Standard Oil’s taxes and those of its wealthiest shareholders in order to pay for more services, like free college and health care. It would have been an acceptable choice for many, but the American 20th century would never have happened.

Garry Kasparov: Hey, Bernie, Don’t Lecture Me About Socialism. I Lived Through It. - The Daily Beast

 

[GoIrish41]

I blame media and Twitter for most of the divisiveness and hatred. We have three different news channels constantly pointing fingers at the other side, talking about how screwed America is, and reporting every negative thing that happens 24/7. It rubbed off on the viewers and now we have a nation of voters who view the world through the hot take lenses of Fox News and MSNBC.

Wish someone would start an entertaining version of CSPAN that reports facts only.

Problem is that nobody wants what CSPAN reports. Making it "entertaining" would mean that you would be doing more of what the current news outlets do right now -- sensationalizing news, pointing fingers, misrepresenting the "other side's" point of view. News isn't supposed to be entertaining ... it is supposed to be informative so people can understand what is going on, and come to their own conclusions. In general, no matter what the public says, it wants its news to be packaged and analyzed by folks who agree with them and presented in a way that validates their own point of view.

Lots of people blame the media for an uniformed public, and they certainly are not innocent of the charges. But, at some point we have to acknowledge that there are a lot of people in this country who are too ignorant or too lazy to do research on their own -- who don't care enough to learn about, for example, what is in a bill. Polling demonstrates that people hate Obamacare, but they like the Affordable Care Act provisions in it. They will speak about it with authority, and confidence, even though they clearly have no clue.

It is much easier to have someone tell them what something means than it is to understand what that thing is and make up their own mind. American's political habits are much the same as their eating habits -- they want prepackaged, easy to consume crap that probably isn't good for them, but it makes them feel full.

 

[drayer54]

This is what boggles my mind with Trump supporters.

It's shocking to me that people don't see this. It's plain as anything i've seen in my life.

You're not alone. He's one of the biggest con artists in American history and the pundits who defend him can overlook and excuse anything. He is going to destroy this party and put the disgusting Clinton choice in office.

 

[tussin]

Problem is that nobody wants what CSPAN reports. Making it "entertaining" would mean that you would be doing more of what the current news outlets do right now -- sensationalizing news, pointing fingers, misrepresenting the "other side's" point of view. News isn't supposed to be entertaining ... it is supposed to be informative so people can understand what is going on, and come to their own conclusions. In general, no matter what the public says, it wants its news to be packaged and analyzed by folks who agree with them and presented in a way that validates their own point of view.

Lots of people blame the media for an uniformed public, and they certainly are not innocent of the charges. But, at some point we have to acknowledge that there are a lot of people in this country who are too ignorant or too lazy to do research on their own -- who don't care enough to learn about, for example, what is in a bill. Polling demonstrates that people hate Obamacare, but they like the Affordable Care Act provisions in it. They will speak about it with authority, and confidence, even though they clearly have no clue.

It is much easier to have someone tell them what something means than it is to understand what that thing is and make up their own mind. American's political habits are much the same as their eating habits -- they want prepackaged, easy to consume crap that probably isn't good for them, but it makes them feel full.

I mostly agree with everything you are saying.

By entertaining I meant better produced. Where are the Walter Cronkites of this generation? Please just report the news and objectively present the stances on each side of the issues. It's not productive to hear S.E. Cupp and Van Jones rant about how awful each party is.

The true shame is that we end up wasting time in debates and town halls about inconsequential, media driven issues that have no effect going forward. For me, the most affecting moment of the entire cycle was when Chrisite (RIP) called out Cruz and Rubio for spending 15 minutes debating nuances of the Gang of 8 Bill.

 

[connor_in]

Troubling warnings for the US from the 1930s - FT.com

When people strike comparisons with Hitler — or Munich — I usually reach for my earplugs. The same applies to the Great Depression. There is nothing on today’s horizon that compares with the Nazis or the mass privation that followed the 1929 stock market crash.

Yet there are echoes we would be foolish to ignore. Western democracy faces no mortal threat. But it is going through an acute stress test. On both sides of the Atlantic, people have lost faith in their public institutions. They are also losing trust in their neighbours. Co-operation is fraying and open borders are in question. We can no longer be sure the centre will hold — or even that it deserves to.

The most insidious trend is vanishing optimism about the future. Contrary to what is widely believed, the majority’s pessimism pre-dates the 2008 financial collapse. At the height of the last property bubble in 2005, Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, said society could not long tolerate a situation where most people were suffering from declining standards of living.

“This is not the sort of thing that a democratic society — a capitalist democratic society — can readily accept without addressing,” he said. This came after several years of falling median income.

 

[connor_in]

WATCH: Hillary Clinton reveals secret strategy to defeat Donald Trump twitchy.com

“I am already receiving messages from leaders — I’m having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump.

Does anyone think this kind of thing would help her with American voters? Or would it more energize those who would vote against her?

 

[NorthDakota]

WATCH: Hillary Clinton reveals secret strategy to defeat Donald Trump twitchy.com



Does anyone think this kind of thing would help her with American voters? Or would it more energize those who would vote against her?

I think it pumps up the Donald's crowd more. "They want us weak. A weak America. The worst kind. Ungrateful punks. Already forgot World War 2. We have great soldiers, who here loves soldiers, God bless our soldiers. Let's make America great again people."