2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

ancapailldorcha · 13-11-2016 05:45PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

If the so-called libertarians that voted for Gary Johnson actually cared about freedom they would have voted for Clinton in order to stop Donald Trump from winning as that was the only possible way to beat him. It shouldn't be a surprise that they didn't do that as the libertarian movement is more about advancing white male privilege as opposed to expanding freedom.

But this is how you end up with someone unlikeable in power. If you only vote for them to keep out someone worse, you just end up with poor candidates and policies. I wouldn't have voted for Johnson in the end, I'd have cast my hypothetical ballot for Clinton.

Manic Moran · 13-11-2016 06:09PM

There are two reasons I went third party.

Firstly, I actually preferred one of the third party candidates over the two main parties. I will give my vote to the person who best deserves it. I did not believe Clinton or a Trump did. I don't think there is any moral or political problem with this attitude.

Secondly, if I vote for Trump or Clinton to keep the other out of office, what message are the powers that are going to take from it in four years? "People support him. Candidates like this are what we should be sending forward. It gets us votes". Personally, I am willing to sacrifice four years so that we don't end up with this deftness again.

AbusesToilets · 13-11-2016 07:24PM

There was also the argument that if a 3rd party candidate receives a sufficient percentage of the vote, that party qualifies for federal assistance next go around. 5% was the figure I believe and it looks like he missed that mark, netting about 3% nationally.

ancapailldorcha · 13-11-2016 07:28PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There was also the argument that if a 3rd party candidate receives a sufficient percentage of the vote, that party qualifies for federal assistance next go around. 5% was the figure I believe and it looks like he missed that mark, netting about 3% nationally.

Disappointingly, Johnson did seem to come off the rails with his response to climate change being that we need to look into colonising other planets and being unable to name a single leader he admired. He also snapped at a Guardian journalist when asked about his tax policies. I don't consider the Aleppo incident all that significant. I am a tad disappointed that he didn't hit the 5% funding target as that might have led to an opening of the 2-party system.

Jawgap · 13-11-2016 07:44PM

Looks like Clinton will win the popular vote by widest popular vote margin among Electoral College losers, except for 1824, 1876 but not all states voted then.

Interestingly.....Trump had this to say about the electoral college 4 years ago.....

.....

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266038556504494082

Trump Warms to the Electoral College, 4 Years After Calling It “a Disaster for a Democracy”

26000 Elephants · 13-11-2016 08:13PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Disappointingly, Johnson did seem to come off the rails with his response to climate change being that we need to look into colonising other planets and being unable to name a single leader he admired. He also snapped at a Guardian journalist when asked about his tax policies. I don't consider the Aleppo incident all that significant. I am a tad disappointed that he didn't hit the 5% funding target as that might have led to an opening of the 2-party system.

They are all fairly serious gaffs, the aleppo one included. I'm surprised that in a country the size of the US that they cant find higher quality candidates to run on the 3rd ticket. I guess its to do with the fact that it would be a bookend to your political career and the professional politicians are fighting it out to get into the top 2 parties.

The only way there would be a chance was if there were a schism in one of the big 2. It may happen yet.

Hank Scorpio · 13-11-2016 10:15PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

So much for draining the swamp! It will positively stink with that pair!! :mad::mad:

Trey Gowdy's been mentioned a lot as AG. I would love to see that happen.

ancapailldorcha · 13-11-2016 10:19PM

Low quality posts deleted.

ancapailldorcha · 13-11-2016 10:20PM

26000 Elephants wrote: »

They are all fairly serious gaffs, the aleppo one included. I'm surprised that in a country the size of the US that they cant find higher quality candidates to run on the 3rd ticket. I guess its to do with the fact that it would be a bookend to your political career and the professional politicians are fighting it out to get into the top 2 parties.

The only way there would be a chance was if there were a schism in one of the big 2. It may happen yet.

Judging by a video I saw of the convention, Johnson was by far the sanest one there. They'd be fairly fringe organisations and, as you say anyone more pragmatic will try to climb in the big two.

brevity · 13-11-2016 10:27PM

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/797911772313382912

First I'm hearing of him. There was talk it might be the guy from Breitbart.

aloyisious · 13-11-2016 11:51PM

Is the reason Don chose Mike Pence as his Transition team boss has to do with him being a senior Party member who will be able to mollify any upset caused there by backtracking on what were supposed to be election promises? Mike is apparently to be in charge of political matters on the W/House team as well according to what I heard on RTE much earlier today - the Marian Finucane Show - where there was a lot of supposing Don might get tired early in office. A fair bit of the supposing was from US guests on the show.

aloyisious · 13-11-2016 11:59PM

brevity wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/797911772313382912

First I'm hearing of him. There was talk it might be the guy from Breitbart.

The gent who was in Breithart (Steve Bannon) is supposed to have a dislike for Paul Ryan, and if Don and Paul are making up on the political front (publicly at least) that might be a reason for the choice of Priebus cos of his being RNC.

Ta for the name, Count Dooku.

Count Dooku · 14-11-2016 12:05AM

brevity wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/797911772313382912

First I'm hearing of him. There was talk it might be the guy from Breitbart.

Steve Bannon will be the White House chief strategist

aloyisious · 14-11-2016 12:56AM

Count Dooku wrote: »

Steve Bannon will be the White House chief strategist

And Counsellor too. I suppose it might be for the political front at home if Don is faced with two opposing sets of advice from within his group, turn to his counsellor Ala Consigliare. I can imagine a lot of egos headbutting over the next two months on the Don team fighting for primacy, career and favour.

Edit... There is one thing I've been curious about in all this politicking. Has there been any input into either side by the labour Unions?

AbusesToilets · 14-11-2016 01:27AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Judging by a video I saw of the convention, Johnson was by far the sanest one there. They'd be fairly fringe organisations and, as you say anyone more pragmatic will try to climb in the big two.

I think the best chance of success for a legitimate 3rd party would be one formed by centrist Congress members. A leader with a strong personality and drive, along with sufficient financial backing would be crucial.

I think that a top down approach is more likely to be successful versus trying to incrementally growing at the state level.

brevity · 14-11-2016 10:52AM

Count Dooku wrote: »

Steve Bannon will be the White House chief strategist

https://twitter.com/JWGOP/status/797918770136117248

This guy works with Kasich - a republican.

Nody · 14-11-2016 11:04AM

Well China has just called Trump's bluff.

The Global Times, the country’s state-run newspaper, said Mr Trump would be “naïve” to start a trade war against the country and that China would respond with "counter-measures" if the US were to act in an aggressive way.

The editorial was clear there would a “tit-for-tat approach” if Mr Trump lives up to his campaign pledge of putting up a 45 per cent tariff on Chinese exports.

...

“A batch of Boeing orders will be replaced by Airbus. US auto and iPhone sales in China will suffer a setback, and US soybean and maize imports will be halted. China can also limit the number of Chinese students studying in the US. "

Guess we can add another item on the list of things promised that's not going to happen.

Christy42 · 14-11-2016 11:14AM

Nody wrote: »

Well China has just called Trump's bluff.

Guess we can add another item on the list of things promised that's not going to happen.

I am sure it was just a metaphorical trade war Trump wanted to start with China. Trump's plans are falling part before he even reaches the white house.

brevity · 14-11-2016 11:28AM

Christy42 wrote: »

I am sure it was just a metaphorical trade war Trump wanted to start with China. Trump's plans are falling part before he even reaches the white house.

If Trump lasts 4 years I'll eat my hat.

He doesn't want to be there and the Republicans don't want him either - he's too unpredictable.

Hank Scorpio · 14-11-2016 11:57AM

Russia have come out extending their arm for peace with the US. The DOW is at a record high. The TPP is dead. Canada's PM has come out saying they are willing to renegotiate NAFTA. Trump refusing a salary and no mention of public hiring for administrative roles https://www.greatagain.gov/serve-america.html .

The man isn't even in office yet and all I see on these boards is constant doom and gloom. He simply cannot win.

Very little mention of Soros, his funding to certain individuals and the rioting going on in major cities right now.

ancapailldorcha · 14-11-2016 12:01PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I think the best chance of success for a legitimate 3rd party would be one formed by centrist Congress members. A leader with a strong personality and drive, along with sufficient financial backing would be crucial.

I think that a top down approach is more likely to be successful versus trying to incrementally growing at the state level.

Fair point but such a party would be forsaking the brands of the big two. I think it is something which needs to happen but it looks like both parties still cater to enough lobbyist interests to create a funding vacuum for would-be challengers.

Jawgap · 14-11-2016 12:59PM

Christy42 wrote: »

I am sure it was just a metaphorical trade war Trump wanted to start with China. Trump's plans are falling part before he even reaches the white house.

I think the problem he's going to face on this and other issues is in the specificity of his rhetoric - he left very little wiggle room as this illustrates.

If he doesn't impose tariffs on China, build an actual wall, deport 3 million illegal immigrants etc etc etc it will be hung around his neck, even if he replaces all those pledges with something better and more pragmatic.

Likewise, if factories don't re-locate and if NAFTA survives he'll spend a lot of time explaining which as the old adage goes means he'll be losing.

One talking head on the radio at the weekend questioned the impact the proposed cut in corporation tax might have - how likely are businesses to base their investment decisions on a reduced tax rate when the cards are stacking up against him being a two-term President, and the next incumbent might jack it back up a few percent?

Personally, I'm coming more to the conclusion that he won't even make one term - the White House for all its power is a gilded cage (and not literally gilded the way his penthouse is

) and I think being cut off from his businesses, being forced to actually govern (and being told what he can and can't do) and the inevitable criticism that will follow will lead to him creating a context where he can resign without making it look like he's had enough.

I give him to just after the mid-terms.

alastair · 14-11-2016 01:06PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Russia have come out extending their arm for peace with the US.

Russia has been at peace with the US for a number of administrations now.

Permabear · 14-11-2016 01:07PM

This post has been deleted.

alastair · 14-11-2016 01:08PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The man isn't even in office yet and all I see on these boards is constant doom and gloom. He simply cannot win.

Not as long as he continues to propose unachievable policy platforms or push flat earth theories, you're right, he can't.

Hank Scorpio · 14-11-2016 01:59PM

alastair wrote: »

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The man isn't even in office yet and all I send on these boards is constant doom and gloom. He simply cannot win.

Not as long as he continues to propose unachievable policy platforms or push flat earth theories, you're right, he can't.

Given that you were calling her President Clinton weeks if not months before the election, I'll have to take what you say about Trump winning anything with a pinch of salt.

On Russia, HRC has been pushing an agenda for a long time. This came up even recently in the debates about her willingness to implement no fly zones in Syria. That is only one on a list of things she has said to provoke tensions.

"Retired senior US military pilots are increasingly alarmed that Hillary Clinton’s proposal for “no-fly zones” in Syria could lead to a military confrontation with Russia that could escalate to levels that were previously unthinkable in the post-cold war world."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war#img-1

Billy86 · 14-11-2016 02:08PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Given that you were calling her President Clinton weeks if not months before the election, I'll have to take what you say about Trump winning anything with a pinch of salt.

So what do you want to see from Trump's presidency, do you want to see corporate lobbying etc taken out of the equation? Do you want him to bring the jobs back from abroad? Also, do you want the illegal immigrants kicked out ASAP and the wall built? And if so, how do you want him to balance the economy to make these affordable?

First Up · 14-11-2016 02:15PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So what did you get?

Hank Scorpio · 14-11-2016 02:33PM

Billy86 wrote: »

So what do you want to see from Trump's presidency, do you want to see corporate lobbying etc taken out of the equation? Do you want him to bring the jobs back from abroad? Also, do you want the illegal immigrants kicked out ASAP and the wall built? And if so, how do you want him to balance the economy to make these affordable?

I believe he can significantly improve economic growth by implementing strategies like he's talked about e.g. lowering corporate tax and imposing tariffs on incoming trade, renegotiating failed deals like NAFTA.

On the illegal immigrants side I think he will immediately deport all illegals who've committed crimes or are short term illegals, and allow families who've been in the country for a long period of time and haven't committed crimes to stay and get registered legally. This will work out for everyone once the border is secured. It's worked reducing immigrants by 95% in other countries with a combination of a wall, fences and added border security staff.

Most of all I want to see corruption removed from office, and the law of the land applied to everyone equally. I can't check right if more cabinet positions have been filled but Trey Gowdy has been pouted as AG and I think it would be a great choice. I want to see him implement an ID system to prevent voter fraud.

I'd like see how he's mentions every Rally the veterans taken care of. The figure of 20+ vets killing themselves everyday is disgusting. One of the biggest question marks hanging over him is what is he going to do about ISIS. Nobody knows the answer to that, whether he'll work with Russia in some capacity or not. Either way it's going to be dirty and ultimately he may
well be judged on it.

Nody · 14-11-2016 02:34PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

"Retired senior US military pilots are increasingly alarmed that Hillary Clinton’s proposal for “no-fly zones” in Syria could lead to a military confrontation with Russia that could escalate to levels that were previously unthinkable in the post-cold war world."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war#img-1

And significant parts of the Security officials are considering resigning over Trump telling to to perform illegal acts of torture along with 50 National security and foreign policy officials from GOP administrations declares Trump would become the most reckless president in USA's history inc. the head of CIA, NSA etc. So unlike your link of pilots this is his own party and actual department heads of the CIA, NSA etc. along with people who're actually have to perform the activities telling you that he's not fit.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments