2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

A question for those who wanted Trump... Now that he has actually won, what do you want him to do over the next four years?

Improving relations with Russia would be the obvious one from many in here, but after that... what specific things do you expect from him? If we were to fast forward to 2020, what would you deem as the things you would expect him to enact?

Building the wall?

Eliminating all corruption from Wall Street?

Banning Muslims from 'terror states' entering the US, and specifically which nations that should pertain to and not pertain to?

Getting rid of Citizens United re elections?

Making abortion illegal?

Getting rid of Obamacare - and if so what would you replace it with?

Repealing Gay marriage?
Increased personal freedoms, and if so which - guns? Marijuana? Others?

Bringing jobs home and introducing penalties etc on companies who hire people overseas? Any specific industries or all?

Protectionism against imports in the event of returning manufacturing home, so that American companies don't have to compete with those from other nations who can offer the same (for example) smartphone at a fraction of the cost?

Increasing or decreasing corporate taxes? Changing the personal tax system and if so in which way(s) - lower taxes all around, lower taxes on the poor, higher taxes on the rich (and what would constitute 'rich') and so on? Keep in mind that what he can and cannot introduce introduce needs to be balanced out by income entering the country, e.g. That the book need to balance.

Increasing or decreasing welfare and subsidies, and if so who to? The unemployed (who it had to be remembered made up a larger chunk of his voter base in the rust belt, deprived rural areas, etc), or elsewhere?

Increase certain areas of spending, or decrease - and which? Military? NASA and sciences? Others?

Kicking out all illegal immigrants immediately? And if so, how to implement it? And if using a task force going door to door, school to school, business to business etc like (if I recall) he suggested in recent months, where to get the money to fund it from?

And of course, anything else that you want or expect from him over the next four years not mentioned in this post.

I'm not being smart here, I am genuinely interested as he has now win the election so it is worthwhile to see what those happy either the result expect to see over the next four years in order to make them feel vindicated come 2020. The republicans now control the house, the senate, the supreme court and the oval office so he does not have any democrat controlled areas of government to get in the way of his pushing for what he wants done, so I really am curious what people who were in favour of him want to see him do with it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting thought.

Of course, you didn't say that though. Instead you asked these leading questions;


To which I responded


The idea that the only type of person that can adequately represent your views, legislating on your behalf, voting and affording you representation in government is someone with near-identical characteristics across some arbitrary set of indicators (age, race, gender) is absurd.

I would chose the 67 year old black jewish lesbian Pole if she had similar views on topics as me. Certainly wouldn't consider the 29 year old white atheist straight Irish guy who cites the manifesto of Identity Ireland as his motus operandi.

Representation is not about what you are. It's about what you think.

I agree, that's why plurality - the essence of a government reflecting the population (not just the electorate or its supporters) - is critically important.

Trump.......pluralist?

Amazingfun wrote: »

Nope:


Trump clarifies his stance on a Muslim ban, saying he'd bar only those from 'terror states'

http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-muslim-ban-2016-6?r=US&IR=T

Clarification indeed.....

Donald Trump said his latest proposal to stop immigration "from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism" is an "expansion" of his blanket ban on Muslims, in an interview aired Sunday.

"I actually don't think it's a rollback. In fact, you could say it's an expansion," Trump told NBC's Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press."

Amazingfun wrote: »

"banning all Muslims"

He never said that. So why bother even answering you?

I am more concerned with the rotten Irish media and various government actors who continue to insult and smear Trump, even after his election. You should be too.

Edited to 'Banning Muslims from 'terror states' entering the US, and specifically which nations that should pertain to and not pertain to?' after your clarification.

What the Irish media or celebrities do or don't say about him is irrelevant at this point - he won the election, and the Republicans won the house and senate so he is in office for four years and they have full control for at least two, regardless of what anyone says. The reason you should answer is because you wanted him elected, and now he has been elected, so it is pretty important what you and everyone else who wanted him elected actually want you to see from him now that he has four years in power with a Republican house, senate and supreme court once eh makes his appointment - with no democrat controlled areas to do an effective job blocking him.

TheDoctor wrote: »

The wall was only a metaphor too.

At least it is a sign that even some of his supporters know he has stupid ideas which need to be gutted to have any sign of reality.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've quite literally just written the opposite of that. You've said 'I agree, and then written the opposite of what you 'agreed' with'.

It's about representing the views. Not 'arbitrary characteristics' - (age,race,gender, etc)

It does not matter what 'body' turns up to do that.

You've suggested otherwise. That by virtue of someone being a 'middle aged white man' that an elected official is incapable of representing a different group.

This is a dangerous and nonsensical idea.

Why are you once again asking me to defend someone I've already said I wont? I've attacked a notion that you have offered regarding the suitability of a representative based entirely on some arbitrary characteristics. Defend that, and attack my logic if you wish; or hopefully see the wood through the trees and realise that the statement is patently untrue and retract it.

Hey don't take my word for it, let the research cover it.....

In a new analysis of the 151,824 public bills introduced in the House between 1973 and 2014, to be published in print in Political Science Research and Methods, researchers found that women were significantly more likely than men to sponsor bills in areas like civil rights, health and education. Men were more likely to sponsor bills in agriculture, energy and macroeconomics

Over all, female lawmakers are just as successful as men at getting their bills passed — except when the bills are about issues affecting women, health, education and social welfare, according to the new study of four decades of House bills by Craig Volden of the University of Virginia, Alan E. Wiseman of Vanderbilt University and Dana E. Wittmer of Colorado College.

Then, only 1 percent of bills sponsored by women passed, compared with 4 percent of all bills. That has been true since 1970, even when controlling for other factors that influence bills’ success.

The researchers concluded that it was not because of a gender difference in expertise or lawmaking ability, but because of institutional bias. Bills on the issues that women dominate are often gridlocked in committee, so they never make it to a vote.

RobertKK wrote: »

A CNN exit poll showed:
46% wanted the next president to be more conservative.
18% more liberal
Most of the rest wanted something similar to Obama.

Trump will put conservative judges on the Supreme Court which is good.
When it comes to illegal immigrants, there are rules and regulations there for a reason. The people who make excuses for these people, would you like thousands of illegals entering Ireland and we not knowing who they are? A country should know who is inside their borders. Trump has a responsibility to deal with it.
Obama's administration has been kicking out lots of illegals, but Trump seemed to have the backing of the people who deal with immigration, as it is a problem.
He needs to see what can and cannot be done.
Ahortion should be restricted.
He needs to do away with Obamacare for something that is affordable and works.
There is already a wall along some parts of the Mexican border, given people were arrested in Mexico who were not Mexican but who were terrorists looking to enter the US via the border, there is a case that something more secure is needed.

I like how Jake Tapper on CNN yesterday said Trump believes the US got involved in too many countries abroad militarily, which many veterans agreed with, but Hillary didn't.
I feel the US has made many situations worse rather than better by the use of military in recent times. So if Trump pulls away from neocon policy, he could become a good president. He has a lot of messes that are there today from people who actively supported neocon policy, that need to be cleaned up which has made the terrorism problem far worse.

I knew it, for all your "both candidates are bad but here's the latest thing wikileaks has said about Clinton..." -posturing, it was all about the Supreme Court and overturning Roe vs. Wade for you, wasn't it?