2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[kisada]

super plot twist: he wins GOP nom as it turned out he was going to lelouch it all along and serve up presidency for clinton, ensuring complete and final destruction of republican party

[Sho]

super plot twist: he wins GOP nom as it turned out he was going to lelouch it all along and serve up presidency for clinton, ensuring complete and final destruction of republican party

"trump stalking horse clinton"

Google it!

[Cjskater]

Of course his supporters and surrogates will spin this into a form of "Candidates grow and evolve throughout the course of the election cycle,"

Anyone who knew anything about his books knew about how his campaign would play out.

Also I just want to mention since it seems you still believe that he's a Democrat, he's not. I think he's closer to a Libertarian and he's not the only one of those in the GOP. He's not fully before that one guy sees my post, but hes pretty close to that.

When you think of social issues, you shouldn't be thinking "progressive" but Libertarian instead. They were fighting for things like gay rights back in the 70s.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Anyone who knew anything about his books knew about how his campaign would play out.

Also I just want to mention since it seems you still believe that he's a Democrat, he's not. I think he's closer to a Libertarian and he's not the only one of those in the GOP. He's not fully before that one guy sees my post, but hes pretty close to that.

When you think of social issues, you shouldn't be thinking "progressive" but Libertarian instead. They were fighting for things like gay rights back in the 70s.

Trump isn't a Libertarian. He's like an anti-libertarian. He wants a LOT more government regulation and government control in basically everything except business, and even there, he's WAY more protectionist than Libertards are.

Trump doesn't fit in any party mold, in part because he doesn't actually stand for anything except for himself.

[Cjskater]

Trump isn't a Libertarian. He's like an anti-libertarian. He wants a LOT more government regulation and government control in basically everything except business, and even there, he's WAY more protectionist than Libertards are.

Trump doesn't fit in any party mold, in part because he doesn't actually stand for anything except for himself.

Actually he doesn't, getting rid of regulations doesn't mean more government control. Remember him talking about closing down some government agencies like the Department of Education. How about Environmental Protection Agency? Being "protectionist" is why I said he's not fully Libertarian.

[Andalusian girls]

Trump doesn't fit in any party mold, in part because he doesn't actually stand for anything except for himself.

well said. superimposing any political ideology onto Trump is a fool's errand

[Marootsoobutsu]

Actually he doesn't, getting rid of regulations doesn't mean more government control. Remember him talking about closing down some government agencies like the Department of Education. How about Environmental Protection Agency? Being "protectionist" is why I said he's not fully Libertarian.

He's "pro-abortion" (now). He's about the government "protecting" women. He's in favor of some regulations, but he's in favor of a non-laissez-faire tax system. He's in favor of mandatory health care. He's in favor of a lot of intrusive, non-business related government intervention in people's lives, and in expanding what there already is. He's not a Libertarian at the most fundamental of levels, any more than he's a Republican or a Democrat.

I don't even think he's intentionally getting the success he has; he's just a demonstration that A) no news is *bad news, and B) the news loves someone making a fool of themselves. He isn't getting attention because he's substantive or clever or insightful. He's not getting attention because he knows people. He's not getting attention because he's a genuine answer to any problem anywhere in any reality. He's getting attention because he has a bad toupee, because he's willing to say anything, and because an incredibly small percentage of Americans think that means he's honest-- like, under 15%, and realistically under 10%. The guy's a joke without even the courtesy of an amusing punchline. He's not a political creature, he has no political ideology, he has no moral compass that he's ever demonstrated-- he gets credit for "telling it like he is", but he is *BY FAR* the most deceitful candidate we have going, and there isn't a politician on record with a honesty-level even *CLOSE* to Trump. He's a charlatan, and a fraud, and he's been such a failure at almost everything in his life that I see no reason to credit this as anything except that 10-15% of Americans are idiots who exist as proof that maybe not everyone should have a vote.

Edit: good to bad

[Sho]

Anyone who knew anything about his books knew about how his campaign would play out.

Also I just want to mention since it seems you still believe that he's a Democrat, he's not. I think he's closer to a Libertarian and he's not the only one of those in the GOP. He's not fully before that one guy sees my post, but hes pretty close to that.

When you think of social issues, you shouldn't be thinking "progressive" but Libertarian instead. They were fighting for things like gay rights back in the 70s.

If that's the case, then very few people saw this play out then.

I see saw him as a Democrat in GOP clothing, yeah. However, at this point, I wouldn't label him anything at all. Trust me when I say I've tried to look at him from any and all angles with any variation of political veneer, and he doesn't quite fit any of them. However, he is quite the populist, on the level of a new-age P.T. Barnum. He's really been setting the definition for "politically expedient" in my mind now, way more than Rubio and Cruz. His objectives are way more cerebral than what you are thinking as well -- he could have been a Democrat or a Libertarian in name and I would have came to the same conclusion.

I'm not sure how you view Ron & Rand Paul or Gary Johnson, but the three of them really hate the Don.

[Cjskater]

He's "pro-abortion" (now). He's about the government "protecting" women. He's in favor of some regulations, but he's in favor of a non-laissez-faire tax system. He's in favor of mandatory health care. He's in favor of a lot of intrusive, non-business related government intervention in people's lives, and in expanding what there already is. He's not a Libertarian at the most fundamental of levels, any more than he's a Republican or a Democrat.

He's pro-life with exceptions, you can call that pro-abortion if you want I guess, that's pretty common in the republican and libertarian parties regardless (not sure what it has to do with this). Government protecting women? You mean his stance on refugees/ISIS? I guess it could be said that way but that's not really a Libertarian specific point either. "Intrusive, non-business related government intervention" = the terrorist iPhone thing? I remember self-proclaimed Libertarians debating about this one. Or do you mean the thing about libel laws? (The only 2 examples I know of here) I don't really want to bother debating this, I will say it's not "expanding" but more like removing a special libel privilege that private citizens do not get (fact based not opinion based). Whether you agree or disagree doesn't really matter.

I'll just link the Libertarian holy grail from 1990: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...cement-efforts

Since it seems I need to say it again: I never said he is Libertarian, I said he is closer to if you want to label him.

2nd paragraph explains a lot though.

I'm not sure how you view Ron & Rand Paul or Gary Johnson, but the three of them really hate the Don.

Ron has had a real hatred of Trump since the beginning, I don't know if he would ever come around even if they both had the same views. Rand said he will back Trump if he wins, I don't personally see Rand as the same caliber though. Gary is similar to Ron but Gary is in direct competition so absolutely 0 chance of this changing. Just an additional point here though, one of Ron Paul's fan sites endorsed Trump.

[Salodin]

The level of salt in that post about why this charlatan has taken over his party is amazing. Your party is reaping the bullshit that it's sewd brother.

[Marootsoobutsu]

The level of salt in that post about why this charlatan has taken over his party is amazing. Your party is reaping the bullshit that it's sewd brother.

I'm not a Republican, though. I've never registered as one, and I've cast more votes for Democrats than I have for Republican.

[dasva]

I think the closest allusion to libertarianism you could make for Trump is he is more conservative economically than democrats and more liberal socially than republicans. But in terms of government intrusion/force well Trump basically running as an authoritarian... it's also probably part of the reason for his success

[Gredival]

However, he is quite the populist, on the level of a new-age P.T. Barnum.

Populist is actually pretty accurate. It explains why he's more to the left than his GOP peers on almost anything besides immigration, except for a few attempts to pander. At the heart of the matter he doesn't oppose entitlements, just who gets the entitlements. He also doesn't mind higher taxes on some of the wealthier people, because to him hedge fund managers are another type of person that leeches off other people's work.

There was a really good piece I read a while ago that outlined all his positions and showed how it fit within the populist label. Can't find it again, but here's another good piece on it.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...opulist-213697

[ringthree]

The collapse of the economy buried McCain, no matter who he chose as a running mate.

Obama was polling well ahead of McCain from well before the conventions. McCain in all probability wasn't going to win no matter the VP or the economy.

[ringthree]

I'm not a Republican, though. I've never registered as one, and I've cast more votes for Democrats than I have for Republican.

I am honestly curious, because I never really understood it, but I was wondering. How can you vote for a Democrat in one election and a Republican in the next? Or vice versa.

[Salodin]

My apologies, I could have sworn you were a conservative on the level of Egon and Swamp.

[Ksandra]

My apologies, I could have sworn you were a conservative on the level of Egon and Swamp.

whatever happened to swamp? This is the time for him to be posting on BG so we can yell at him.

[Cantih]

He got banned. Same general behavior as Maz and Leif (Lief?).
Apparently it wasn't a perma, but it was long enough that he hasn't kept posting.

[Ksandra]

I am honestly curious, because I never really understood it, but I was wondering. How can you vote for a Democrat in one election and a Republican in the next? Or vice versa.

I assume he means the actual election, not the primaries.

[Gredival]

I assume he means the actual election, not the primaries.

I think he just means that, as a matter of principle, you're always going to be either closer to the Dems or the Republicans in ideology. Therefore your vote should almost always go to the nominee from the party you are closer aligned with because that candidate will almost always represent positions closer to yours, even if you may not like a particular nominee.

While that's true in modern times, there used to be liberal Republicans in the NE and Blue Dogs in the South that were centrist enough that they might be closer to your ideology if you were sufficiently moderate. But they are dying out on both ends.