2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Shamrock Theories]

Lol. You apparently don't know what "racist" means. Or maybe it's "Mexican" that confuses you.

"Mexican" is not a race. It's literally impossible to be racist against "Mexicans."

Lmfao sweet jesus

I'm sorry, but who the fuck are you?

Hahaha...

 

[GoIrish41]

The GOP is such a disaster and yet dominates state legislatures and has a large majority in Congress. Presidential politics is only one part of politics.

You do know what thread your are in, right? We're talking about presidential politics. We can talk about gerrymandering and voter supression in the Politics thread, though.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

I'll concede the following: Trump is an idiot.

Glad we cleared that up

 

[Whiskeyjack]

In short, the party I'd seek would return to moderation, civility, conviction, environmental stewartship and rational principled thought, and away from divisiveness, fearmongering, indifference to the poor, war as a business model, and disproven economic theories.

You just described a bunch of policies that the DNC currently supports. We don't need a 2nd Democratic Party. Can you envision a principled opposition that Progressives wouldn't denounce as racist and evil?

 

[Legacy]

The Rep Party, if it still is one party anymore, is in this position because:

- Trump is articulating the need for action on issues that should have been resolved by Congress a long time ago and which are of deep concern to the American people regardless of party affiliation or ideals

- The Reps obstructed legislation that would resolve some of these serious problems with an eye towards winning the Presidency and both houses of Congress to advance a conservative agenda after the elections, while tailoring the election process to give more weight to the early frontrunner

- They stoked anger against the Dems, but underestimated the extent to which Rep voters were angry at their heavily-funded Rep candidates, who were viewed as establishment. Trump's insults of his fellow candidates touched a cord - "lying", "cheating", "not smart", "spoiled", "like a little boy", "pathological", "a fraud" - in enough Rep voters to get him the nomination.

- Trump offers solutions, simplistic perhaps, but a hope for change even if he borders on authoritarianism - China will negotiate a new trade deal, Mexico will pay for the wall, the Congress will be made to do what he wants - or there will be tariffs, mass deportation, problems with Congress, etc.

- The usual strings that control candidates - money - are not there with a self-funded candidate.

Now the question is whether Trump represents the Party, its ideals and message and what to do about it if he does not. If he wins, he could take over the Party, subvert their ideals, and lead them in an undesirable and untenable direction.

 

[GoIrish41]

That's a contradiction in terms for anyone who believes in their principles in good faith, left or right.

I believe that the policies of the Left are bad for the country. Compromise means giving the other side some of what they want. For any politician who sincerely believes in his positions, "compromise" cannot be done for the good of the country because compromise means allowing things that you consider bad to come to pass.

On any hypothetical issue: I believe "never" is good for the country and "always" is bad for the country. If I compromise and pass a bill that says "sometimes," I'll be complicit in something that I believe will do harm to the country.

You are a young man, Wiz, and probably never really had an opportunity to experience what a functioning two party system looks like. Based on your experience, you probably think its all about conflict, with good guys and bad guys. So, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Everything you think will "harm the country" won't. Consider for a moment the possibility that you might be wrong once every now and then. While you are "allowing things you things that you consider bad to come to pass" you are also making it possible for things that you consider good to come to pass. That wouldn't happen without compromise. Because the more one side digs in, the more the other side does the same.

The alternative is what we've had over the past 5 years -- nothing gets done ... Senators patting themselves on the back because they "pushed through" a Farm Bill, that used to be a routine administrative vote, much like they do after agreeing to pay the bills that Congress has already obligated with all kinds of BS attached to it. Everything is about conflict ... Who is right? Who is wrong? Who is sneakier? Whose polished, vetted zingers won the news cycle ... and we get nothing from any of it. It didn't used to be like this. Trust me, it was better the other way.

 

[wizards8507]

Everything you think will "harm the country" won't. Consider for a moment the possibility that you might be wrong once every now and then. While you are "allowing things you things that you consider bad to come to pass" you are also making it possible for things that you consider good to come to pass. That wouldn't happen without compromise. Because the more one side digs in, the more the other side does the same.

The alternative is what we've had over the past 5 years -- nothing gets done ... Senators patting themselves on the back because they "pushed through" a Farm Bill, that used to be a routine administrative vote, much like they do after agreeing to pay the bills that Congress has already obligated with all kinds of BS attached to it. Everything is about conflict ... Who is right? Who is wrong? Who is sneakier? Whose polished, vetted zingers won the news cycle ... and we get nothing from any of it. It didn't used to be like this. Trust me, it was better the other way.

That's a good thing! You keep framing up gridlock as some kind of flaw in the Republic. It's not a flaw, it's a feature. It's supposed to be really really hard to "get things done." The country was designed that way on purpose. When it's hard to get things done, you help ensure that only consensus (i.e. really really good ideas) legislation gets passed. "Get things done" is great if you have faith in the government to do a good job, but I don't share your optimism. From where I'm sitting, the government doing things is generally bad so I'm content with them doing as little as possible, regardless of whose agenda is driving it.

You bring up the farm bill as an example of something that's now difficult but used to be routine. I say "why the fuck do we need a farm bill?"

 

[Legacy]

That's a contradiction in terms for anyone who believes in their principles in good faith, left or right.

I believe that the policies of the Left are bad for the country. Compromise means giving the other side some of what they want. For any politician who sincerely believes in his positions, "compromise" cannot be done for the good of the country because compromise means allowing things that you consider bad to come to pass.

On any hypothetical issue: I believe "never" is good for the country and "always" is bad for the country. If I compromise and pass a bill that says "sometimes," I'll be complicit in something that I believe will do harm to the country.

Have you always been a Trump supporter or are you compromising on him?

Effective government always embodies some compromise - to get a bill out of committee, to get a vote of the body, to bring together variations of bills passed by the House and by the Senate, to have the President sign it. Otherwise, government comes to a halt because even within a party you have differences of viewpoints, ideals and direction.

Do you always believe "never" is good for the country and "always" is bad for the country?

 

[NDgradstudent]

Man, you guys got it rough. You poor, poor thing.

Well, white men don't enjoy the benefits of affirmative action, and are frequently denied jobs that are instead given to less qualified minorities.

Here were the test results from the exam in the Ricci case (from pg. 4 here):



Here's a sample question from these firefighter qualification tests:


print screen

Yup, the difference in passage rates must be the result of racism.

The current rule, under Griggs, is that if blacks and Hispanics do worse on a test than whites, it's the test that is wrong. This means lawsuits trying to show that police departments, fire departments, etc., are "racist" in their hiring practices. So its not just screwing whites by taking away jobs for which they alone are qualified, its defaming whites by saying that their "racism" explains why blacks and Hispanics do worse on these tests.

 

[wizards8507]

Have you always been a Trump supporter or are you compromising on him?

I'm not a Trump supporter. The most pro-Trump thing I think I've ever said is "no, I don't believe Trump is a racist."

 

[NDinL.A.]

Well, white men don't enjoy the benefits of affirmative action

Man, you guys have had it so rough for dozens of days! What is wrong with this country??????

#makeamericaWhiteagain

 

[NDinL.A.]

You know the most amusing thing I find from asshole liberals?

If you talk to them about food stamp abuse they are very quick to point out how the majority of food stamp users are white.

Then if you talk to them about about how for whites are the only group who are not allowed to have organizations to help them...like blacks and latinos have, they mock about how tough whites must have it.

You then ask them if they are smart enough to see the connection and they look at you with a stupid blank stare.


I guess Blacks and Mexicans want exclusivity on sympathy handouts and quotas. You lucky bastard.

Sorry Trumptard, I'm not a liberal or a Mexican. You're a special kind of Trumptard, that's for sure. And everything I have in this life is based on hard work and a strong faith. Do better.

Again, you're the genius who said a peaceful protester (protected by the Constitution) is the same thing as a violent protester. Think about that. Let that marinate. Then back away from the keyboard and ask yourself, "Man, I was given every opportunity to succeed in this country, and I used my education to say THAT???"

Then re-think your life. You're welcome.

 

[wizards8507]

Man, you guys have had it so rough for dozens of days! What is wrong with this country??????

#makeamericaWhiteagain

People are individuals, not groups. There's no such thing as "you guys." There's no mystical force binding all white people together, nor does a random black person today suffer because black people, as a group, were mistreated in the past*. If Joe refuses to hire Karen because she's a woman, then Karen is a victim of sexism and Joe is a sexist. There's no communal victimhood status conferred on all women, nor do Joe's sins stain the souls of all men. "Deport illegal immigrants" is a statement against individuals who have violated the sovereignty of the United States, not the creation of blanket persecution of all Mexicans, let alone all brown-skinned people. If you're not an illegal immigrant, then you have no beef with Donald Trump.

*With the exception, perhaps, of a direct descendant of a former slave.

 

[Legacy]

I'm not a Trump supporter. The most pro-Trump thing I think I've ever said is "no, I don't believe Trump is a racist."

As are many conservatives/Republicans. Stick to your ideals. Do not compromise and vote for Trump. Why not Libertarian?

 

[NorthDakota]

As are many conservatives/Republicans. Stick to your ideals. Do not compromise and vote for Trump.

If you like him more than Hildabeast, vote for Trump. Not all that difficult

 

[GoIrish41]

You just described a bunch of policies that the DNC currently supports. We don't need a 2nd Democratic Party. Can you envision a principled opposition that Progressives wouldn't denounce as racist and evil?

In fairness, you asked me what I'd like it to look like.

I can see why you would think so, but I'm not describing a second Democratic Party ... I provided examples of Republican programs and accomplishments. The Republican Party of my youth would be appauled by the party today. Most of the Republicans I used as examples would be and have been described as "not real Rebublicans" or RINOs -- sellouts.

It is my opinion that the GOP has gone off the rails to the point that even moderates in their own party are nearly extinct. The Republican Party I would like to see come back is one of reason and principle, not continuously testing the edges of what "right" is and calling everyone else who doesn't come along for the ride a pussy. The Republican Party of my youth was nothing like the party of today.

On the topc of "opposition," let's take the issue that I know is of great import to you ... abortion. I think if there are people on my side who are pro choice, there absolutely must be an opposition that is pro life. I think if the Dems had no opposition on the topic, abortion rates would climb (maybe dramatically) and guys like you, rightfully, would be screaming from the mountaintops.

On social programs, I could see the Dems going all in on programs to improve the lives of the poor and by doing so destroying the economy (some say they already have, lol). Without GOP opposition, things could get out of hand -- just as they would if Republicans had free reign on tax cuts and our treasury would run dry.

I don't have time to go through both platforms and provide examples, but that is where I'm coming from when I say there needs to be principled opposition. For every "great idea," there needs to be a counterweight. The problem is that everyone these days seems to be a counterweight, and we are running short of great ideas. Balance is best!

 

[wizards8507]

As are many conservatives/Republicans. Stick to your ideals. Do not compromise and vote for Trump. Why not Libertarian?

The Libertarian party did not nominate a real libertarian. Gary Johnson is a fraud and his only claim to libertarianism is that he likes to smoke pot. Even then, I probably would vote third party if a third party reached the point of viability. But if I get to the ballot box and the only choice is Clinton or Trump, I have to decide which of them I believe will do less harm to the country. I honestly don't know which of them that is at this point.

 

[ACamp1900]

If you hate him with the passion of a thousands burning suns less than Hildabeast, vote for Trump. Not all that difficult

fixed...

 

[dales5050]

Sorry Trumptard, I'm not a liberal or a Mexican. You're a special kind of Trumptard, that's for sure. And everything I have in this life is based on hard work and a strong faith. Do better.

Again, you're the genius who said a peaceful protester (protected by the Constitution) is the same thing as a violent protester. Think about that. Let that marinate. Then back away from the keyboard and ask yourself, "Man, I was given every opportunity to succeed in this country, and I used my education to say THAT???"

Then re-think your life. You're welcome.

I said asshole liberals. Maybe the right shoe does not fit but the left one does.

Rather amusing that you take issue with me calling you a liberal and then call me a Trumptard. I have repeatedly said I don't like Trump but I dislike people like you more so it may seem like enjoyment in your frustration is actually support.

Now either get off my lawn or mow it.

 

[GowerND11]

I said asshole liberals. Maybe the right shoe does not fit but the left one does.

Rather amusing that you take issue with me calling you a liberal and then call me a Trumptard. I have repeatedly said I don't like Trump but I dislike people like you more so it may seem like enjoyment in your frustration is actually support.

Now either get off my lawn or mow it.

 

[IrishLax]

I said asshole liberals. Maybe the right shoe does not fit but the left one does.

Rather amusing that you take issue with me calling you a liberal and then call me a Trumptard. I have repeatedly said I don't like Trump but I dislike people like you more so it may seem like enjoyment in your frustration is actually support.

Now either get off my lawn or mow it.

Not sure how exactly to read this, so I'm going to give you a little bit here to explain yourself before something happens.

 

[GoIrish41]

That's a good thing! You keep framing up gridlock as some kind of flaw in the Republic. It's not a flaw, it's a feature. It's supposed to be really really hard to "get things done." The country was designed that way on purpose. When it's hard to get things done, you help ensure that only consensus (i.e. really really good ideas) legislation gets passed. "Get things done" is great if you have faith in the government to do a good job, but I don't share your optimism. From where I'm sitting, the government doing things is generally bad so I'm content with them doing as little as possible, regardless of whose agenda is driving it.

You bring up the farm bill as an example of something that's now difficult but used to be routine. I say "why the fuck do we need a farm bill?"

It's supposed to be hard to get things done, so the people who become the best at operating the levers of power -- the Clintons, for example -- are demonized as unprincipled flip flippers and sell outs. That is what you get when government is stifled by gridlock. It open up cracks for corruption to seap in and poison the system. The "feature" you salute is the flaw, and I reject the notion that this is how it is supposed to work. When a bad law finds its way onto the books, it should not be an all out war against well funded special interests to make a course correction.

 

[NorthDakota]

I don't think so...I read it as him telling him in kinder terms to go fvck himself.

 

[wizards8507]

It's supposed to be hard to get things done, so the people who become the best at operating the levers of power -- the Clintons, for example -- are demonized as unprincipled flip flippers and sell outs. That is what you get when government is stifled by gridlock. It open up cracks for corruption to seap in and poison the system. The "feature" you salute is the flaw, and I reject the notion that this is how it is supposed to work. When a bad law finds its way onto the books, it should not be an all out war against well funded special interests to make a course correction.

You're assuming the well-funded special interests are all on the same side against "the people," but it's much more likely that anything supported by well-funded special interests is also opposed by well-funded special interests.

There will always be well-funded special interests and they're always going to want to get at the levers of power, as you call them. Read Federalist #10. You'd like to prevent special interests from influencing those levers, but I call that naive and impossible. The much more prudent course of action would be to destroy the levers of power so that nobody can use them for their own ends. If there are no levers of power, nobody can abuse them.

 

[GowerND11]

I don't think so...I read it as him telling him in kinder terms to go fvck himself.

That's my thought/hope. Could certainly be interpreted as otherwise. Like Lax said, let's see what he says...

 

[gkIrish]

People are individuals, not groups. There's no such thing as "you guys." There's no mystical force binding all white people together, nor does a random black person today suffer because black people, as a group, were mistreated in the past*. If Joe refuses to hire Karen because she's a woman, then Karen is a victim of sexism and Joe is a sexist. There's no communal victimhood status conferred on all women, nor do Joe's sins stain the souls of all men. "Deport illegal immigrants" is a statement against individuals who have violated the sovereignty of the United States, not the creation of blanket persecution of all Mexicans, let alone all brown-skinned people. If you're not an illegal immigrant, then you have no beef with Donald Trump.

*With the exception, perhaps, of a direct descendant of a former slave.

If not all Mexicans are illegal immigrants, why did/does Trump refer to the people he wants to prevent from entering this country illegally as Mexicans? It seems to me that he is the one generalizing a group of people.

 

[GoIrish41]

You're assuming the well-funded special interests are all on the same side against "the people," but it's much more likely that anything supported by well-funded special interests is also opposed by well-funded special interests.

There will always be well-funded special interests and they're always going to want to get at the levers of power, as you call them. Read Federalist #10. You'd like to prevent special interests from influencing those levers, but I call that naive and impossible. The much more prudent course of action would be to destroy the levers of power so that nobody can use them for their own ends. If there are no levers of power, nobody can abuse them.

Just how do we get to the state in which there are no levers of power?

 

[wizards8507]

If not all Mexicans are illegal immigrants, why did/does Trump refer to the people he wants to prevent from entering this country as Mexicans? It seems to me that he is the one generalizing a group of people.

1. I don't know how I became the de facto Trump defender. I think he's awful.

2. It depends what you or Trump mean(s) when you say "Mexicans." You seem to be talking about people of Mexican heritage who live in the United States. Some of those people are Mexicans (illegal immigrants) and some of them are Mexican-Americans (legal immigrants, immigrant-citizens, natural-born citizens). When Trump says he wants to prevent Meixcans from entering the country illegally, he's not talking about "people of Mexican heritage," he's talking about citizens of the country of Mexico.

3. Comments on Muslims aside, Trump has made no statements (of which I'm aware) with regards to restricting legal immigration from Mexico. His statements have not been anti-Mexican-people-coming-into-the-United-States. His statements have always been anti-people-coming-into-the-United-States-illegally, and I honestly don't know how anyone can be against that.

 

[wizards8507]

Just how do we get to the state in which there are no levers of power?

Step one would be to stop creating new levers of power. That's why the Affordable Care Act is so dangerous. There's nothing (or at least very little) more fundamental to your personhood than your health, and now politicians and the special interests behind those politicians have control over it. That's terrifying. Even if you're 100% happy with the people pulling the levers at a given time in history, the very idea that the levers exist makes you vulnerable to the whims of whatever group grabs power next.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I can see why you would think so, but I'm not describing a second Democratic Party ... I provided examples of Republican programs and accomplishments. The Republican Party of my youth would be appauled by the party today. Most of the Republicans I used as examples would be and have been described as "not real Rebublicans" or RINOs -- sellouts.

Here's a snippet of WaPo's review of The Fractured Republic:

How in the world did we get to this state of disunion? One unexpected, compelling explanation comes from Yuval Levin, in his new book “The Fractured Republic.” Levin faults a “perverse and excessive nostalgia” by baby boomer politicians for the America of the 1950s and 1960s. For liberals, this was a golden age of job security, growing wages, high tax rates and relative economic equality. For conservatives, it was a promised land of family stability, community strength and conservative social norms. Levin describes this as a “consolidating America” in which industrialization, restricted immigration and the shocks of depression and war led to greater social, political and economic cohesion than the United States had ever seen.

But this postwar period was also an inflection point. The second half of the 20th century saw the “deconsolidation of America,” with growing social libertarianism, vastly expanded immigration, the globalization of labor markets, the growth of information technology and general abundance. These were centrifugal forces that made both our economy and our culture far less cohesive and centralized.

Both right and left, in Levin’s account, miss the cohesion of mid-century America, and yet both are also relieved (in different ways) to be freed from those forces. “The right generally longs for cultural consolidation,” Levin told me, “but is glad for the economic deconsolidation. And the left longs for economic cohesion but is glad of the cultural liberation.” Each side is convinced the other has achieved the greater victory and thus believes the country is going to hell.

I don't think nostalgia about the post-war GOP can be helpful because, absent World War III, we're very unlikely to ever regain the social, political, and economic cohesion of Levin's "consolidating America". Our future is going to be much more pluralistic, and will necessitate different solutions than what worked 60 or 70 years ago.

I don't have time to go through both platforms and provide examples, but that is where I'm coming from when I say there needs to be principled opposition. For every "great idea," there needs to be a counterweight. The problem is that everyone these days seems to be a counterweight, and we are running short of great ideas. Balance is best!

Good on you for being able to come up with something. I'd suggest that liberals need to think hard about what sort of opposition party they'd (realistically) like to see emerge from the post-Trump wreckage of the GOP. Currently, we look to be on a similar trajectory to Europe, which involves an American right that is much more driven by white populist nationalism than universal ideals. No one wins if that happens.

The Libertarian party did not nominate a real libertarian. Gary Johnson is a fraud and his only claim to libertarianism is that he likes to smoke pot. Even then, I probably would vote third party if a third party reached the point of viability. But if I get to the ballot box and the only choice is Clinton or Trump, I have to decide which of them I believe will do less harm to the country. I honestly don't know which of them that is at this point.

What else would you expect from this sort of party?