2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Minions]

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.

My Republican Friends/Family in Texas are going to vote for Clinton if its Clinton vs Trump. This election is all kinds of crazy.

[Marootsoobutsu]

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

In some things, I probably am. In others, I'm very much not.

Long explanation and break-down follows

Spoiler: show

I tend to vote more Republican on a national scale, but much more likely to be Democrat on a small scale. I've voted R for all Presidents that I've been able to, and for my state's Senators. I've voted D twice for Representatives. At the state level, I've voted D for more than half my state Senators, D for about 3/4 of state Reps. County has been slightly more D than R,

For me, my biggest issue with liberal policies is a matter of control-- states, counties, and cities have progressively more capacity for control than the nation does. My vote and my voice matter more in my city than they do for the national, and so I'm more comfortable with safety nets and public help managed at *this* level than I am with them managed further up the chain. I want to help people, but I want to make sure that it's helping them, and not creating dependency, and that it's meeting the needs of individuals. The Federal government can do broad sweeps, but it misses so many of the actual needs of people, it doesn't address what will help them get ahead-- it focuses on barely making lives tolerable. And while that's kind of a good thing, it's a far better thing to put people in a position to advance their lives. Cities, towns, districts, and the like are better suited for that-- they can match the mood of the neighborhood, they can talk to people, and tailor needs directly. I prefer charities to do this, and do volunteer, but there are some things the government *can* do, particularly in economic down-times, that charities are generally ill-equipped for. Not many, but they do exist.

Nationally, my biggest issue is immigration right now, which makes me extraordinarily opposed to Trump and Cruz. I want things better for immigrants, I want it to be easier to come here (and stay here) legally. I'm probably classified as extremely liberal on that score.

When it comes to prisons, I'm moderate-- I'm in favor of the death penalty, and I don't have a problem with our rates of incarceration. But, I want our prison system to focus less on punishment, and far, far more on rehabilitation. I don't have the exact solution for that, but something needs to be tried. It's one of the few areas I'd take a tax bump now for, because I think it would help the economy in the long run, both by providing better workers and by lowering the long-term incarceration rate. This is another reason why I tend to vote D local, and R federal-- my state can experiment with that, and is fairly likely to try to. But federal crimes *tend* to be more serious, and so I'm less inclined to push such a program to the federal level.

I am conservative economically-- and I generally tend to think that we'd get a lot more done on the compassionate side of things if more of it were state-side. The less money that siphons through Washington DC, the more that there is available locally to spend on the people who need it instead of bureaucrats. We could provide the same service, and eliminate something along the lines of 5-20% (depending on the department), just by removing the Feds from the equation. That's either money saved, or less money wasted.

I *AM* very religious and a fundamentalist Christian, which does put me in fairly stark contrast with BG on a couple of big issues, but I think for the most part, my frustration is a matter of scale. I don't have a problem with Romneycare; I have a problem with Obamacare, because of the scale of things. I see folks compare Europe to us, but the analogy falls flat-- we are 6 times larger than the largest EU nation, and we compare more favorably to the EU as a whole in terms of diversity-- economic, cultural, racial, religious, political. We're FAR more diverse than *ANY* country in the EU individually, and that does create problems. Many of our states compare to EU states in terms of population and economic output-- let's put it at that level. There isn't a one-plan-fits-all in the EU, and I see precious little reason to try it here, especially with how controversial or debt-ridden the programs are in Germany, France, and the UK.

It's not that I don't want people cared for; it's that I genuinely believe that the programs generally pushed at our federal level will not *help* people, but will either A) not accomplish their intended goal (and certainly not at the budget-point quoted by Congress), or B) will create dependency (and entitlement), rather than opportunity and gratitude.

[archibaldcrane]

(we're only 4 times larger than Germany - 80M to 320M)

[Salodin]

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

Idk, I haven't noticed him around since the whole fiance debacle...

[Byrthnoth]

He stopped posting in 2013 for the most part, after some pretty typical arguing. He posted once in 2015 in the FFXI nostalgia thread. Not sure what the fiance debacle was.

Edit: Search tells me the fiance debacle was 2011, so probably unrelated to him eventually not posting anymore.

[Salodin]

jfc, that took place in 2011? wow.

[Andalusian girls]

In some things, I probably am. In others, I'm very much not.

Long explanation and break-down follows

Spoiler: show

I tend to vote more Republican on a national scale, but much more likely to be Democrat on a small scale. I've voted R for all Presidents that I've been able to, and for my state's Senators. I've voted D twice for Representatives. At the state level, I've voted D for more than half my state Senators, D for about 3/4 of state Reps. County has been slightly more D than R,

For me, my biggest issue with liberal policies is a matter of control-- states, counties, and cities have progressively more capacity for control than the nation does. My vote and my voice matter more in my city than they do for the national, and so I'm more comfortable with safety nets and public help managed at *this* level than I am with them managed further up the chain. I want to help people, but I want to make sure that it's helping them, and not creating dependency, and that it's meeting the needs of individuals. The Federal government can do broad sweeps, but it misses so many of the actual needs of people, it doesn't address what will help them get ahead-- it focuses on barely making lives tolerable. And while that's kind of a good thing, it's a far better thing to put people in a position to advance their lives. Cities, towns, districts, and the like are better suited for that-- they can match the mood of the neighborhood, they can talk to people, and tailor needs directly. I prefer charities to do this, and do volunteer, but there are some things the government *can* do, particularly in economic down-times, that charities are generally ill-equipped for. Not many, but they do exist.

Nationally, my biggest issue is immigration right now, which makes me extraordinarily opposed to Trump and Cruz. I want things better for immigrants, I want it to be easier to come here (and stay here) legally. I'm probably classified as extremely liberal on that score.

When it comes to prisons, I'm moderate-- I'm in favor of the death penalty, and I don't have a problem with our rates of incarceration. But, I want our prison system to focus less on punishment, and far, far more on rehabilitation. I don't have the exact solution for that, but something needs to be tried. It's one of the few areas I'd take a tax bump now for, because I think it would help the economy in the long run, both by providing better workers and by lowering the long-term incarceration rate. This is another reason why I tend to vote D local, and R federal-- my state can experiment with that, and is fairly likely to try to. But federal crimes *tend* to be more serious, and so I'm less inclined to push such a program to the federal level.

I am conservative economically-- and I generally tend to think that we'd get a lot more done on the compassionate side of things if more of it were state-side. The less money that siphons through Washington DC, the more that there is available locally to spend on the people who need it instead of bureaucrats. We could provide the same service, and eliminate something along the lines of 5-20% (depending on the department), just by removing the Feds from the equation. That's either money saved, or less money wasted.

I *AM* very religious and a fundamentalist Christian, which does put me in fairly stark contrast with BG on a couple of big issues, but I think for the most part, my frustration is a matter of scale. I don't have a problem with Romneycare; I have a problem with Obamacare, because of the scale of things. I see folks compare Europe to us, but the analogy falls flat-- we are 6 times larger than the largest EU nation, and we compare more favorably to the EU as a whole in terms of diversity-- economic, cultural, racial, religious, political. We're FAR more diverse than *ANY* country in the EU individually, and that does create problems. Many of our states compare to EU states in terms of population and economic output-- let's put it at that level. There isn't a one-plan-fits-all in the EU, and I see precious little reason to try it here, especially with how controversial or debt-ridden the programs are in Germany, France, and the UK.

It's not that I don't want people cared for; it's that I genuinely believe that the programs generally pushed at our federal level will not *help* people, but will either A) not accomplish their intended goal (and certainly not at the budget-point quoted by Congress), or B) will create dependency (and entitlement), rather than opportunity and gratitude.

it's actually kind of impressive this place is so partisan a tome is required to justify an individual voting for both Democrats and Republicans

[ringthree]

it's actually kind of impressive this place is so partisan a tome is required to justify an individual voting for both Democrats and Republicans

While I don't know if a tome is required, but if you are voting on issues and not personalities, then yeah it actual does take some explanation as to why you would vote for a Democrat in one election and then a Republican in another. I mean, your personal issue preference could change, and that would be fine. I am just curious what could drive it.

[Cjskater]

I don't think its strange at all even voting based on policy. I would wonder if you actually agreed with your candidate of choice 100%. Most people are going to have policies they care about more and when a candidate talks about those policies you care about in ways you can agree with, then you will gravitate towards that candidate. Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/etc are just foundations, they're not doctrines you have to follow fully or else. This push to be far right or far left is honestly a waste of everyone's energy. You can be a Democrat and Christian, you can be a Republican and support universal health care. Why bellyache about how pure you are when you can make sensible decisions.

[kuronosan]

While I don't know if a tome is required, but if you are voting on issues and not personalities, then yeah it actual does take some explanation as to why you would vote for a Democrat in one election and then a Republican in another. I mean, your personal issue preference could change, and that would be fine. I am just curious what could drive it.

So you think Sanders is pie in the sky, but people who are issue voters have to explain themselves?

[ringthree]

I don't think its strange at all even voting based on policy. I would wonder if you actually agreed with your candidate of choice 100%. Most people are going to have policies they care about more and when a candidate talks about those policies you care about in ways you can agree with, then you will gravitate towards that candidate. Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/etc are just foundations, they're not doctrines you have to follow fully or else. This push to be far right or far left is honestly a waste of everyone's energy. You can be a Democrat and Christian, you can be a Republican and support universal health care. Why bellyache about how pure you are when you can make sensible decisions.

I didn't say you had to agree on everything. I am saying there are clear delineations between almost all policy positions, which usually makes it pretty clear who you would vote for. This is especially true in presidential elections.

I am not bellyaching. I am asking an honest question.

[ringthree]

So you think Sanders is pie in the sky, but people who are issue voters have to explain themselves?

I am asking an honest question.

I do think that Sanders is pie in the sky, but that doesn't mean you can't vote for him. I am saying that I would be confused if someone would vote for Sanders this time, but previously voted for Romney.

How does that happen?

[Blubbartron]

I am asking an honest question.

I do think that Sanders is pie in the sky, but that doesn't mean you can't vote for him. I am saying that I would be confused if someone would vote for Sanders this time, but previously voted for Romney.

How does that happen?

Well, Romney did enact a pretty great healthcare plan for his state, years before Obama would get it done at the federal level. It's not like they're utterly antithetical to each other. Just mostly.

[kuronosan]

I am asking an honest question.

I do think that Sanders is pie in the sky, but that doesn't mean you can't vote for him. I am saying that I would be confused if someone would vote for Sanders this time, but previously voted for Romney.

How does that happen?

Well, if the only issue that mattered was health care to that voter I could see it.

Otherwise, I don't know. As an independent the most important thing to me is social, economic, and health equality for everyone. Hence, I support Sanders. It was Obama's speech and crazy Palin that caused me to want to vote Obama, because I believed social change was coming.

Now that I'm hitting my mid thirties, I'm tired of voting for someone just because of a party name and I need a little more justification than words. Bernie has a physical record that demonstrates he's always been about the issues he campaigns on. I respect and resonate with that.

The problem I have with voting for Hillary is that I don't see the same thing in her character, which is why I'm willing to vote for her if people can demonstrate to me otherwise.

[Quicklet]

The reason to vote for Hillary is not because of her "character" (in the sense you're talking about). The best argument for Hillary is if you like her for her social positions (the easy stuff) and are afraid that a Republican president would be so damaging to the country that we'd lose whatever minor progress Obama has made on certain issues.

There's no indication that she has any intention of addressing the systemic problems that younger and working-class people want addressed, and I think that's a serious problem for the Democratic Party if you're looking at the next 14 years of politics instead of just the next 4.

[archibaldcrane]

There's no indication that she has any intention of addressing the systemic problems that younger and working-class people want addressed, and I think that's a serious problem for the Democratic Party if you're looking at the next 14 years of politics instead of just the next 4.

Are you not a fan of her college plan?

http://time.com/money/3990445/hillar...-college-plan/

Or boosting the federal minimum wage by 60%?

[Mertron]

from the article

and provide grants to colleges that are improving their graduation rates and other student outcomes.

eh

[kuronosan]

Are you not a fan of her college plan?

http://time.com/money/3990445/hillar...-college-plan/

Or boosting the federal minimum wage by 60%?

No, because the article is way off base and doesn't actually do anything to address the problem.

Average debt is $30k?

Just to be brief, 15k + 45k / 2 = 30.

[archibaldcrane]

No, because the article is way off base and doesn't actually do anything to address the problem.

Average debt is $30k?

Just to be brief, 15k + 45k / 2 = 30.

The article is off base or her plan is?

What do you identify as "the problem"? Reduced state spending per student? Soaring administrative costs?

I think most current college students would say the problem is that they have to take on too much debt to get a higher education.

I don't know what the point of your obvious math problem is.

[BerenTebogo]

PEMDAS