2016 Presidential Horse Race

[FightingIrishLover7]

We need a party that is capable of actually representing the interests of poor and working-class whites, instead of just pandering to them in primaries before serving the needs of the donor class. "Calm down, bro; you're full on mad" is not a strategy for diffusing Trump's coalition.

In related news, it must be a cold day in hell, because Tom Nichols just argued in The Federalist that conservatives should support Hillary over Trump.

It's been speculated before that Trump is in cahoots with the Clintons. Each day I find the conspiracy to it more believable (still think he's just an egocentric maniac, don't think he'd go through this effort of faking a run). He's absolutely wrecking the GOP, and the establishment as a whole.

 

[RDU Irish]

I don't want to come across as being pretentious, but a lot of Americans really are making an ass of themselves.

It's mine blowing that a liar, hypocrite, flip flopper like Hillary is probably going to win the Democratic nomination, while a billionaire, punch you in your face threatening bully, might win the Republican nomination.

Americans are over reacting to every little thing. Idk if it's the media's doing, but too many Americans are acting like if we don't drastically change now, the country is going to incinerate.

ISIS much?

 

[wizards8507]

We need a party that is capable of actually representing the interests of poor and working-class whites, instead of just pandering to them in primaries before serving the needs of the donor class. "Calm down, bro; you're full on mad" is not a strategy for diffusing Trump's coalition.

Nobody wants to say this out loud, but I will. The poor and working class don't have basic economic literacy. It's a lot harder to sell them on the policies that will actually lift them out of poverty than it is to tell them "free college!," "free money!," and "ethanol mandates!"

In related news, it must be a cold day in hell, because Tom Nichols just argued in The Federalist that conservatives should support Hillary over Trump.

I'm there. If the country is going to go down in flames, it might as well be the Democrat Party that gets blamed for it.

 

[pkt77242]

The End Times are here!

SMOD 2016

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tr-BYVeCv6U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

ISIS much?

Haha. Good catch, fixed. (need to resist the urge to get too involved in this thread while using my phone, too many careless mistakes)

 

[woolybug25]

"Winning"
~ Trump

"Winning"
~ Sheen

 

[tussin]

Nobody wants to say this out loud, but I will. The poor and working class don't have basic economic literacy. It's a lot harder to sell them on the policies that will actually lift them out of poverty than it is to tell them "free college!," "free money!," and "ethanol mandates!"

I'm there with you.

Perhaps this is "un-American" of me to say, but I think every voter should have to pass a simple test prior to voting. Really basic stuff like who each candidate is, what their stances are main issues, and the high level implications of implementing such policies.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

 

[IrishLax]

I'm there with you.

Perhaps this is "un-American" of me to say, but I think every voter should have to pass a simple test prior to voting. Really basic stuff like who each candidate is, what their stances are main issues, and the high level implications of implementing such policies.

Buster and I started broaching this topic in this thread (or the Politics one) a couple weeks ago... but I never followed up on his response.

I'm inherently anti-democratic because I think people are generally uninformed and stupid. There are thousands and thousands of scholarly pages that show democracy is a terrible form of government, and thousands and thousands of more pages that show that people are generally incapable of acting in their own collective self-interest without some other sort of checks and balances.

 

[wizards8507]

Perhaps this is "un-American" of me to say, but I think every voter should have to pass a simple test prior to voting. Really basic stuff like who each candidate is, what their stances are main issues, and the high level implications of implementing such policies.

The test already exists.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm there with you.

Perhaps this is "un-American" of me to say, but I think every voter should have to pass a simple test prior to voting. Really basic stuff like who each candidate is, what their stances are main issues, and the high level implications of implementing such policies.

You mean tests associated voting eligibility like these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

We have tried that before. If you are gonna do that then it should include a question on what conservatism and liberalism actually are. Because 75% of eligible voters otherwise would fail that question alone. I mean even wizards would not be able to vote because he does not understand libertarianism is not conservativsim.

 

[wizards8507]

Buster and I started broaching this topic in this thread (or the Politics one) a couple weeks ago... but I never followed up on his response.

I'm inherently anti-democratic because I think people are generally uninformed and stupid. There are thousands and thousands of scholarly pages that show democracy is a terrible form of government, and thousands and thousands of more pages that show that people are generally incapable of acting in their own collective self-interest without some other sort of checks and balances.

The Founding Fathers agreed with you. There's a reason the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures, not by the people. Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a good start.

 

[woolybug25]

Ahh... a country where only "smart" people had a say in how they were governed.

That would end well...




Plus... Trump would never go for that... he "loves the poorly educated".

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-i-love-the-poorly-educated-144008662.html

 

[wizards8507]

Ahh... a country where only "smart" people had a say in how they were governed.

That would end well...

It's not just how the voter is governed, but the voter's ability to influence how everyone else is governed. Informed people shouldn't be subjected to whims of the ignorant, especially when the ignorant become the majority.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

The Founding Fathers agreed with you. There's a reason the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures, not by the people. Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a good start.

What happens if the state legislatures are in cahoots with Senate candidates? How does the public overthrow this self-fulfilling political loop?

I'm playing Devils advocate here, because I agree there a thousand and one flaws with democracy. It's just a damn if you do, damn if you don't situations.

Honestly, my philosophy is, most politicians are running for either their own interests or their donor's interest.

We'd probably be better off having a randomized "jury pool" type of system where a group of individuals (no idea how you'd measure this, iq? Seniority? Resumes?) that would randomly be selected and appointed to an assigned position, and are forced to do their best.

Obviously this goes 100% against freedom, lol, but it would definitely help reduce political biases, and eliminate absurd campaigning and the media coverage associated with it. Sometimes, too many choices can be a bad thing for humans.

 

[wizards8507]

What happens if the state legislatures are in cahoots with Senate candidates? How does the public overthrow this self-fulfilling political loop?

Federalism. It's a lot easier to make your voice heard in a state election (to remove corrupt state politicians) than to make your voice heard in a federal election. It's even easier to make your voice heard in local elections. That's why keeping as much power with the people, towns, and states as possible. The ability to petition the government is much more difficult the further away from the individual that power lies.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It's been speculated before that Trump is in cahoots with the Clintons. Each day I find the conspiracy to it more believable (still think he's just an egocentric maniac, don't think he'd go through this effort of faking a run). He's absolutely wrecking the GOP, and the establishment as a whole.

No one is more "establishment" than Hillary. And Trump is winning enough minority and union voters to beat her in the general. Would be a pretty ironic way for our republic to end if a corrupt Democratic political dynast hires Trump to destroy the GOP, who then promptly turns around and destroys her as well.

Nobody wants to say this out loud, but I will. The poor and working class don't have basic economic literacy. It's a lot harder to sell them on the policies that will actually lift them out of poverty than it is to tell them "free college!," "free money!," and "ethanol mandates!"

I'm there. If the country is going to go down in flames, it might as well be the Democrat Party that gets blamed for it.

I'm there with you.

Perhaps this is "un-American" of me to say, but I think every voter should have to pass a simple test prior to voting. Really basic stuff like who each candidate is, what their stances are main issues, and the high level implications of implementing such policies.

They're our countrymen. We find a way forward with them, or not at all. Yes, as a group they're ignorant and vice-ridden. But they're like that because of our failure, as a nation, to assimilate them into genuine communities. Their short-comings are ours.

 

[tussin]

Ahh... a country where only "smart" people had a say in how they were governed.

That would end well...

Plus... Trump would never go for that... he "loves the poorly educated".

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-i-love-the-poorly-educated-144008662.html

I'm not talking about a literacy test, just something that can demonstrate that you actually know who the candidates are and what they stand for. It has nothing to do with being smart, it's about being informed.

Perhaps the solution is to have a mechanism that clearly lays out each candidates positions side by side immediately prior to voting.

 

[wizards8507]

They're our countrymen. We find a way forward with them, or not at all. Yes, as a group they're ignorant and vice-ridden. But they're like that because of our failure, as a nation, to assimilate them into genuine communities. Their short-comings are ours.

I understand. I'm not saying we should throw them off the bus. Just maybe don't let them drive.

I'm not talking about a literacy test, just something that can demonstrate that you actually know who the candidates are and what they stand for. It has nothing to do with being smart, it's about being informed.

Perhaps the solution is to have a mechanism that clearly lays out each candidates positions side by side immediately prior to voting.

I don't think that solves anything. You can clearly lay out that Bernie Sanders wants to pay for free college with a "tax on Wall Street speculation," but that doesn't help anything when low-information voters have no idea what the hell "Wall Street speculation" means.

Case-in-point: Presidential front-runner Donald Trump has no idea what the nuclear triad is.

Trump appears stumped by question on nuclear triad - CNN Video

 

[pkt77242]

Republicans’ Last-Ditch Hope To Stop Donald Trump | FiveThirtyEight

 

[RDU Irish]

We need a party that is capable of actually representing the interests of poor and working-class whites, instead of just pandering to them in primaries before serving the needs of the donor class. "Calm down, bro; you're full on mad" is not a strategy for diffusing Trump's coalition.

In related news, it must be a cold day in hell, because Tom Nichols just argued in The Federalist that conservatives should support Hillary over Trump.

I didn't think white people could be poor, with all of their privilege and whatnot?

What you are all doing is calling anyone stupid for supporting Trump while at the same time assuming his rhetoric is indicative of what he would actually do behind closed doors. His celebrity creates this opportunity. "Your Fired" has been owned by him and what phrase do people want said more around DC than that? You also completely discount the balance of power and fact both sides will pounce on the first opportunity to impeach. If anything - I bet he runs cleaner behind the scenes than anyone b/c he is focused on results rather than scoring political points and capital.

And the calls for a moderate, respectable, experienced candidate is hilarious when Mitt Romney didn't stand a chance against the most inexperienced President we may ever see.

 

[connor_in]

I'm not talking about a literacy test, just something that can demonstrate that you actually know who the candidates are and what they stand for. It has nothing to do with being smart, it's about being informed.

Perhaps the solution is to have a mechanism that clearly lays out each candidates positions side by side immediately prior to voting.

Dude...you realize that just for asking for someone's proof of identification you are automatically an un-American, racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, islamaphobic...(insert any number of -ists and -phobics you want)... piece of shi_. You want anything like what you list, heck you just triggered every micro-aggression known and/or ever pondered

Sadly, while wanting this to be satiracal, I cannot bring myself to use italics as it seems to be completely true anymore

 

[woolybug25]

It's not just how the voter is governed, but the voter's ability to influence how everyone else is governed. Informed people shouldn't be subjected to whims of the ignorant, especially when the ignorant become the majority.

"Informed" is only what we define it as.

I think it is wrong to say that someone isn't intelligent enough to make a decision on the type of person they want representing them. Just as an uninformed person may be manipulated by empty promises, an informed person can be manipulated by a curtain of specific policy. There are plenty of people that will vote on one issue (ie Pro Choice vs Pro Life) and have no desire to be informed on any other issue. Should their voice not be heard?

Also, I think we can all agree that any voting structure will be manipulated. It's a slippery slope in my opinion, where the more restrictive voting becomes, the more we would have a group of privilege making the decisions for all.

"All men created equal" is a pretty important cornerstone to our society, imo.

 

[DomeX2 eNVy]

Cruz and Rubio need to take 5 paces, turn, and shoot. 1 must go. Preferably Cruz would go away.

Neither will drop out, but neither can win with the other one in the race.

*I just picked this post to quote for context.

I'm not buying the Rubio line (prior Bush line, Cruz line, Christie line, etc.) that Trump has a firm ceiling at 20%, then 25%, then 30%, then mid 30%; and a consolidation will knock him out. Everyone has been campaigning against everyone but Trump to be this big anti-Trump nominee. But let's see what has happened as people drop out.

Iowa: T = 24.5%; R = 22.7%; C = 27.8%; then Santorum; Graham; Huckabee; et al get out
N. Hampshire: T = 35.3%; R = 10.6%; C = 11.7%; then Carly; Christie; et al get out
S. Carolina: T = 32.5%; R = 22.5%; C = 22.3%; then Bush gets out
Nevada: T = 45.9%; R = 23.9%; C = 21.4%

So who is getting the drop out's votes? Looks like Trump is collecting more than the others. Cruz has continued to slide with less competition, and Rubio seems to be the one with a ceiling in the mid 20%.

Marco keeps saying that over half of the people aren't for Trump; but he refuses to acknowledge that consistently over 3/4 of the voters aren't for him.
As for Mr. Cruz, the more people know him, the more they hate him.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I understand. I'm not saying we should throw them off the bus. Just maybe don't let them drive.

I'm with you to a certain extent. There's always an element of smoke and mirrors in any "democracy". Hierarchy is unavoidable, so a society's elites will always be the ones in charge. The trick is not in pretending that there are no elites, and that we're all just as good as one another (a lie); but in convincing the elites that its in their best interests to take care of the poor, and that we're all in this together. Christianity did a pretty awesome job of that during the Middle Ages, but there's less and less holding us together as a society now that Christianity isn't the organizing cultural force in the West.

 

[wizards8507]

"Informed" is only what we define it as.

I think it is wrong to say that someone isn't intelligent enough to make a decision on the type of person they want representing them. Just as an uninformed person may be manipulated by empty promises, an informed person can be manipulated by a curtain of specific policy. There are plenty of people that will vote on one issue (ie Pro Choice vs Pro Life) and have no desire to be informed on any other issue. Should their voice not be heard?

Also, I think we can all agree that any voting structure will be manipulated. It's a slippery slope in my opinion, where the more restrictive voting becomes, the more we would have a group of privilege making the decisions for all.

"All men created equal" is a pretty important cornerstone to our society, imo.

I know all that, I wouldn't really get behind these policies. Just playing devil's advocate as a thought experiment of the implications of an uninformed electorate. I think it's another area where local governance shows its superiority. It's easier for the average blue-collar worker to consider whether they'd like casino or liquor zoning in their neighborhood than it is for them to understand the competing macroeconomic worldviews of John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek.

 

[tussin]

I don't think that solves anything. You can clearly lay out that Bernie Sanders wants to pay for free college with a "tax on Wall Street speculation," but that doesn't help anything when low-information voters have no idea what the hell "Wall Street speculation" means.

It's a start right? Every bit will help get people more informed, even something that shows proposed tax brackets at different income levels, healthcare plans, broad social stances, etc.

The broader point is that it's amazing how many people know seemingly nothing about politics. I was on Facebook yesterday and somebody posted a general election Presidential voting poll --- 100 people responded and ~60% went to Trump. These are college educated people with decent jobs. These are the voters that can swing an election. What are they thinking? I just don't get it.

 

[pkt77242]

I'm with you to a certain extent. There's always an element of smoke and mirrors in any "democracy". Hierarchy is unavoidable, so a society's elites will always be the ones in charge. The trick is not in pretending that there are no elites, and that we're all just as good as one another (a lie); but in convincing the elites that its in their best interests to take care of the poor, and that we're all in this together. Christianity did a pretty awesome job of that during the Middle Ages, but there's less and less holding us together as a society now that Christianity isn't the organizing cultural force in the West.

Huh, care to explain that more?

I don't think that the middle ages is exactly a time where we can say that the "elites" took care of the poor.

I would also add that Christianity is more and more often being used as a cover to take advantage of the poor and to use them to benefit the elite. I think that sometimes you see Christianity (mostly Catholicism) through rose colored glasses.

ETA: Not that all of Christianity takes advantage of the poor but just turn on the TV and watch some of the prosperity preachers or even some local churches.

 

[tussin]

And the calls for a moderate, respectable, experienced candidate is hilarious when Mitt Romney didn't stand a chance against the most inexperienced President we may ever see.

BO was a generational JFK type candidate. Immensely likable (initially), charismatic, and an amazing orator. I wouldn't chalk up Romney's loss as a sign that moderates can't win anymore.

 

[RDU Irish]

Look at you all whine about the government being corrupt! Wiz gets belittled to no end and then you turn around and whine about the exact thing that your philosophies create.

What is the quote from Churchill? Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others?