You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
polluxlm wrote:Maybe. For me the "problem" with Sanders is not his stated policies. They mostly look sensible and intelligent, and I agree with many of them. What makes me reject him is the way he talks. When he goes on about "the big bad rich" I see that as coming from the mind of a communist. Then looking into his past and I find communist ties, the deal is off for me. Communism is what I fear the most, and if there's a chance a candidate is that, I'm not buying him however good a game he talks (and Bernie talks a good game).
Looking at it from a European perspective, I agree with you: I'd never vote for someone using Bernie's rhetoric on our side of the pond. I'd vote (and have voted) for parties that have very similar policies though. However, in the context of the US I'm willing to give him a pass on that for a number of reasons:
- The two-party system forces him to be more outspoken to get the nomination for 'his' party, to set him apart from Hillary. In a parliamentary democracy with multiple viable parties you can (need to) be more nuanced in your positions.
- The American media feeds on polarization (more than most European media does). In order to get any amount of screen time, he needs to exaggerate and simplify his message more than a similar candidate would in Europe.
- In order to effectively bring his message across, get through to the average American citizen, and pierce through the "USA is #1 in everything" reality distortion field that some perpetuate, he needs to create a threat to the American Way of Life(tm), a boogeyman if you will, and big nameless corporations are an obvious and easy target, especially given that they really have contributed significantly to the wealth gap over the past few years/decades.
- There's no way in hell that the American people will allow anyone to turn their country into a communist authoritarian nation, the US constitution has many provision that provide protections against that and 4 years (or 8) is not nearly enough time to dismantle that entire framework. So even if you buy into the idea that Bernie is a real communist (he isn't), 4 years of having him in charge is likely to push the US more in the direction of a Western European-style Social Democracy (which would be a good thing), it'll never be enough to push the country over the edge into full blown Communism (a very very bad thing).In short: the US needs Bernie at this point in its history.
Bernie isn't and has never been a democrat until he ran for president. Which is kind of shitty if you ask me.
I honestly don't believe he's exaggerating his message.
His beliefs are inherently flawed to this nation, he wants to raise taxes at the same time wanting to raise wages to heights the majority of states cannot afford, which will increase lay offs and the hiring of part time workers and increase out sourcing and automation. The average wage could not rise enough to handle the expense of free healthcare and college. It has to be nuanced. Our system does not need to be torn apart and rebuilt into a European model.
No, when it comes down to a GE and not a primary, Bernie will be destroyed. If he runs against Trump we will have a president Trump. That is a fact. No matter what a meaningless poll says, Trump will win. That's what a lot of us fear.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
polluxlm wrote:My question is, do you trust him?
I do, more so than Hillary (the only other viable candidate for me) at least. And way more than I trust Trump or Cruz. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he's willing to say anything to get elected (and has changed positions on issues in a matter of days), which makes the search for his real policy positions akin to searching for a needle in a haystack. Obfuscating your real positions for the sake of electability that badly makes him very untrustworthy for me.
Cruz... well, anyone that religious should not be president if you care about personal liberties.
He'll say anything, but that's a given. Every candidate is like that.
What I like about Trump is that he is untainted by political ideology. Basically he's just a smart, privileged man who has worked (fairly) hard. He's not looking to implement any type of tyrannical state based on political religion, he just wants to do a good job as President. That's the vibe he's giving me. His qualities as a leader outweigh what has become empty rhetoric from the political establishment. Do I trust him? No, but I think he could easily be very capable for the job.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
When people call him a bigot or a racist that is when I know they lost the argument.. When you play the race card you are desperate.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Why are we afraid of trump? To me, what's attractive about him is the fact that the establishment is so scared of him, and it's not because he's going to start ww3. What are they really afraid of?
There's little to stop Trump wreaking havoc as president
By Chris Berg
Posted 7 Mar 2016, 7:05pm
Donald Trump on the trail
PHOTO: What's worrying about Trump is his unpredictability, his disregard for any boundary between truth and self-serving fiction, and his unbridled narcissism. (Branden Camp/Getty Images)
There are supposed to be checks and balances that would prevent Donald Trump doing too much damage as US president. But these have been eroded and an era of "imperial presidency" means we should be worried, writes Chris Berg.
The prospect of a Donald Trump presidency shouldn't be as worrying as it is.
The United States constitution is specifically designed to prevent presidents from doing too much damage. But the carefully, intelligently designed checks and balances built into the American system of government have been so eroded over the last century that a president Trump could do the sort of harm the founding fathers wished to prevent.
The issue is not so much Trump's policies. I complained in January that Trump was no conservative - particularly on trade - but then again, he wouldn't be the first non-conservative president. In fact, policy-by-policy he looks like the most moderate candidate in the Republican field; the temporary ban on Muslim immigration to the United States notwithstanding.
Nor is being a "populist" a crime. Trump would hardly be the first president who got to power by telling voters only what they wanted to hear.
What's worrying about Trump is his unpredictability, his disregard for any boundary between truth and self-serving fiction, his unbridled narcissism, his instability, and his apparent desire to pursue his enemies with the tools of high office.
He sees himself as a "strong man" - hence his apparent affinity with other strong men like Vladimir Putin. And at this stage it is easy to imagine a chain of events that puts him in the White House.
The American founding fathers were aware that a democratic political system could turn out a person like Trump. The Federalist Papers, the essays written in 1787 and 1788 to argue the case for the constitution, were motivated by a theory of human nature "that men are not to be trusted with power because they are selfish, passionate, full of whims, caprices, and prejudices," in the words of one scholar.
Trumponomics: What is Donald Trump's economic vision?
Strong jobs growth is unlikely to affect the campaign of US presidential hopeful Donald Trump because his supporters are mainly people who have been passed over by the economic recovery, writes Sheryle Bagwell. So what exactly is Trump's economic policy?
Hence in the famous Federalist Paper 51, James Madison argued that power must be separated between different branches of government. Each branch - the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary - would vie for power against the others.
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition," Madison wrote. The institutional structures of the American republic would ensure that a strong man or narcissist, were they elected to the presidency, would be constrained by the other branches.
Yet those structures have been systematically degraded over the past century. The presidency has accumulated power at the expense of the legislature.
As the word implies, the executive's intended function is to execute the laws passed by Congress. But the modern presidency has carved out an enormous field of action where it can operate virtually without the oversight of the other branches. The historian Arthur M Schlesinger Jr. called this the "imperial presidency".
The most obvious example of the imperial presidency is foreign policy. Under the text of the constitution, only the Congress has the power to declare war. But the last war to be declared by Congress was World War II. Since then presidents have been asserting almost unlimited, unilateral power over military engagement and interventionism. The upshot is that, contrary to the founders' intentions, the president can effectively send the country to war on nothing but their own counsel.
Trump says he now opposes the invasion of Iraq, but he also wants to take Islamic State's oil. Whatever strategy he implements to do so, the combined forces of the United States military are in practice at his complete disposal.
Just as concerning is the power the president can wield over public policy. The original idea behind Western liberal democracy is that policy is made by the legislature as they negotiate and pass law. But the growth of regulation as a substitute for statute has vested more and more power in the executive government.
In 2014 federal departments, agencies and commissions passed 16 new regulations for every one law the Congress passed. As the economist Tyler Cowen wrote last month: "If there were a president who wished to pursue vendettas, the regulatory state would be the most direct and simplest way for him or her to do so." Having the vindictive Trump responsible for all this is dangerous.
The shift from a constrained presidency to an imperial presidency has been cultural as well. In his book The Rhetorical Presidency, Jeffrey K Tulis argues that the presidency has assumed a symbolic role not envisioned by the founders.
Voters - and the press - describe one of the key requirements of the office as "leadership". Yet as Tulis points out, this was not what the founders hoped. The Federalist Papers had only a dozen mentions of the word leader. All but one were disparaging.
During the 20th century, the presidency became about words as much as administration - presidents were rated on their personalities and ability to channel popular sentiment.
Trump is the apotheosis of this change: a demagoguing narcissist who is all surface and shine. But all democracies are vulnerable to such populist figures. The founders knew that. If only their great institutions had been maintained.
Chris Berg is a senior fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs. His latest book, The Libertarian Alternative, will be published by Melbourne University Publishing in May. Follow him at twitter.com/chrisberg
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
I stopped reading after the first paragraph. If his assessment is that he's the only politician that lies and is narcissistic, he needs to start doing more research before writing. They ALL lie. Every one of them. They all have egos. Every one of them. You don't get to the national level in either party without being full of yourself, telling lies that you probably believe to be true because you've told them for so long, and most importantly toeing the company line.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
That's not what he said at all. Trump will abuse his presidential powers to settle vendettas. My opinion, he'd be impeached. No telling what would go on with Christie in his cabinet who has his own issues of abuse of power. He has shown no filter or self control.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
That's not what he said at all. Trump will abuse his presidential powers to settle vendettas. My opinion, he'd be impeached. No telling what would go on with Christie in his cabinet who has his own issues of abuse of power. He has shown no filter or self control.
If he tanks we get a new pres in 4 years.... In 4 years he won't destroy this country and he will NOT start world war 3. Though Wars are good for business in some aspect, one now would be horrible and morale would really sink low.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Why are we afraid of trump? To me, what's attractive about him is the fact that the establishment is so scared of him, and it's not because he's going to start ww3. What are they really afraid of?
You know, had Trump ran more of a rational, businessman, The Apprentice Boardroom style of campaign I would have supported him to a good extent. Possibly even voted for him. But the way he's run this reckless campaign is just shocking!!
What's worse, it's all a schtick. He's not some Conservative Republican at all?! He's a liberal New Yorker just saying whatever it takes at this point. I truly believe he first entered the campaign in the summertime to ruin Jeb Bush. I think he really hated the Bush's & Dick Cheneys. I think his sole purpose was going to be just to attack him. Then when his campaign started gaining traction & support his ego kicked in & now he wants this. He's just flailing at the wind & saying whatever he wants or needs to say ("Build a wall between US & Mexico & make Mexico build it"??) and just continues on. I just think he's gotten too far off track & it's more of a mockery of a Presidential campaign than a real one. Again, had he been more of 'the smartest guy in the room' I would've had more interest in his appeal as not another politician, and I think he could have and suceeded. Somewhere tho, his ego got off track. But hey, he's still winning. I heard his son on the radio on an interview, as part of his campaign. And strangely he still sounded very straight on this. As if it hadn't reached any point of absurdity on the family name. Not sure if his daughter Ivanka's been interviewed much recently, I'd be curious as to her thoughts on it, and if she believes deep down this has gone too far.
To me, if Trump kills it today, he's gotta reel it back in. Tone it down & become the sucessful businessman/boardroom guy again. Otherwise, it's Jerry Springer.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
What's worrying about Trump is his unpredictability, his disregard for any boundary between truth and self-serving fiction, and his unbridled narcissism.
That's not what he said at all. Trump will abuse his presidential powers to settle vendettas. My opinion, he'd be impeached. No telling what would go on with Christie in his cabinet who has his own issues of abuse of power. He has shown no filter or self control.
That appears to be exactly what he said. Obama btw is setting the world on fire using the agencies against his enemies. Clinton just had them killed.
