American Politics: Discuss and Debate (Page 2 of 57)

Yeah, I agree with this.  Except if Trump is the Republican nominee.  In that case, I think voter turnout (on both sides) would be huge.

The number one concern for GOP is what a Trump ticket will do to their Senate, House, and Governor candidates appearing on the November ballot.  If he drags them all down, it's a complete disaster.  He can win Presidency and fight them night and day as the current President has been.  They don't care, Washington GOP cares most about controlling the money aka Congress.

I'm sure that Hillary is part of the reason. Trump can be whatever people want him to be. He has expressed just about every belief out there at one point or another. Democrats can like him because he says a lot of Democrat things. Republicans can like him because he says a lot of Republican things.

The only thing that is needed for someone to like Trump is a lack of real research.

My brother recently started working for a conservative talk radio station that opened in our area, so I've been listening to it.  I think it was Lars Larson who gave a good idea what the average Trump voter is thinking.

Lars stated that the Trump voter honestly doesn't care about most of what Trump says; instead they are looking at two things as their expectation.  They want the wall at the Mexico border built, and they want the Trade deals to change (which are blamed with costing American jobs).  Trump has owned these issues during the campaign, and his people believe he is the only one running who hasn't had a chance to try to address them.

The American people are used to being conned; it's an accepted form of American politics and the expected motivation of all candidates.  But many people have reached the point where they no longer feel like they are being conned - they instead feel like they've been kicked in the stomach and robbed.  There is a difference.

People have to be thrown a bone every once in awhile; and in this election, the wall has turned out to be the bone for many people.

Trump wants to replace Obamacare with universal coverage.  Unlike the establishment Republicans, he realizes that the rank & file GOP voters also want that.

I would disagree that republicans want universal healthcare. Conservatives and libertarians want the government involved in as little of their lives as possible. Putting the government in charge of healthcare is exactly what they don't want.

I know some libertarians, and they tend to vote along the republican/conservative side in major elections because their own candidates don't usually make it far. Libertarians and conservatives have a lot in common, though there are significant differences.

I have to disagree with your comment about ordinary republicans supporting large government programs. While this may be true for the more moderate/liberal republicans, it's not true of the majority. The republican voters tend to be pretty conservative. Conservative values are about less big government control over our personal lives. You paint this as only being interested in what helps them, and no interest in helping others. That's not the case.

The programs that you're talking about are programs that people pay into with every paycheck. The government takes that money from the people, and the people do have an interest in getting it back. However, if you listen to a lot of republicans, they also talk about restructuring those programs to give individuals more control over their own money and taking the federal government out of it.

Universal healthcare is a failing policy. It has been proven time and time again to reduce the quality of care, while driving taxes through the roof. That is the standard viewpoint of the average republican in this country. If it weren't, every republican candidate out there would be running on a platform of passing universal healthcare, but it's not as simple as "everyone gets taken care of" and republicans tend to know that. Someone is going to have to pay for it. Who? We're already in enough debt. And once you're in the business of approving or not approving medical procedures, you're in the business of turning down those who aren't seen as a worthy investment. Conservatives do not like a big government approach to life. They want more local controls of health, schools, and most other things. Your theory that most republicans support universal healthcare goes against the very fabric of republican (and definitely conservative) ideals.

Look at the standard republican/conservative point of view... they are about reducing government, not growing it. (of course, there are some republicans who support programs that would grow government, but that is not where the party's voter base is coming from)

That is why the Republican party is seeing such a huge internal backlash now. The politicians aren't in line with the voters. That is why the two front-runners are considered anti-establishment.

I disagree that we just have to throw up our hands and give in to universal healthcare. I don't see it as inevitable. If we learn the lesson of those countries who have universal healthcare now, we won't go anywhere near it.  There is still plenty of time to avoid that iceberg... But it will take work, since the media rarely discusses the downside of universal healthcare, and most voters don't know anything beyond "Free!" (Not that even this part is true)

Oh man....I watched the whole CNN Brooklyn Democratic Debate.  Barf barf barf.  Hillary Clinton is so slimy that I felt like I needed to take a shower.  The woman cozies up to Obama because she knows that he's really popular with African Americans, while her husband has been very critical of him so she can also court the vote that doesn't like him.  She routinely changes her opinion on guns or trade or immigration or crime depending on what audience she's in.  She panders to the Brooklyn audience as if she's one of them.  She acts like she earned both her job as a US senator and the secretary of state job because of her work ethic, not her last name.  It's insulting.

Every time I see her, all I think of is Frank Underwood.  Not only were the Underwoods based on the Clintons, but I feel like she's embracing that.  She's a southern Democrat who tries and smooth-talk people while secretly stabbing them in the back.  And it's so glaringly obvious to me that I have to wonder if she's resorted to some sort of black magic to trick people into not seeing it.  She wants to pretend like she's the spiritual successor to Barack Obama when she has much more in common with cartoonishly evil politicians like Tywin Lannister.

At this point, I don't care who beats her.  If it's Bernie, cool.  If it's Cruz, fine.  Hell, if it's Trump....I bet that guy gets impeached before he can do any real harm.  But when someone has spent their entire lives bullying, manipulating, and cheating their way to the top, I don't want to see them succeed.  I'd love it if she just had to spend the rest of her life pandering to the big banks at $225,000 a pop, talking about how she would've made them so much more money if the American people had just given her what she was owed.

I don't have an opinion of Hillary Clinton yet. I'm doing my research. I did write her as a one-term US President running for mayor of San Francisco in the fhird SLIDERS REBORN script, but that was a random detail of alt-history. Also, Slider_Quinn21 feels I have been rather hard on him lately over his opinions of Rey and Ben Affleck as Batman which I've (jokingly) characterized as hatred towards women and old people, so even if I disagreed with him (and I currently lack the knowledge to concur or dissent), I would probably sleep on it for a few weeks.

I've tried being extra nice to old people to try and make up for my apparent internet hatred of them

So you'll vote for someone who's more awful instead?  Or are you looking at smaller party candidates?

Hillary won big last night, and in her speech, she tried to court Bernie supporters.  But then one of her campaign advisors tweeted that Bernie needs to drop out because his campaign is "destructive."

What's funny is that Hillary clearly has the nomination locked up - it's almost impossible for Bernie to win....even at a contested convention, the Democrats would vote her in because it's "her turn" - but Bernie controls the general election.  What happens if Bernie is so turned off by the vitriol of the Clinton campaign that he doesn't endorse her?  What happens if he softly endorses her and the 1/3 (and growing) of his supporters flat-out refuse to vote Hillary?

Now I've seen the argument that "Democrats won't let Trump win just to spite Hillary" but there are two problems with that.  First, a lot of Bernie supporters aren't Democrats.  Young people don't give a crap about parties - they care about issues.  And so it's going to be hard to use party rhetoric to get Bernie people in line.  Second, I saw something really interesting on Twitter last night when I was searching #NeverHillary.  Several Bernie people were responding to "Well, you're going to vote Hillary to avoid Trump" with "Maybe this country deserves Trump."

Bernie folks seem tired of getting jerked around by the Democrats.  This election was rigged for Hillary before it even started, and they're tired of feeling like the deck is stacked against them.  So I wouldn't be surprised if they do vote against the Democrats - either by voting 3rd party, not voting at all, or, yes, voting Republican. 

If I'm the RNC, I'm doing everything I can to court the Bernie voters.  I'm not sure exactly how they can do that (Bernie is to the left of Hillary), but there are some issues that Trump can use (trade, unions, the Iraq War, actually) to court them.

I think Hillary's people are assuming that the Bernie vote will get in line.  Her surrogates keep saying that she did it for Obama.  The difference is that her people are hardcore establishment Democrats who, of course, fell in line.  Unfortunately for Hillary, I don't think Bernie folks care about Democrats enough to do that after the way they've been treated.  Because they certainly don't care about her enough.

Hillary hopefully won't get indicted until a new President is in office. Obama would just wave his magic wand and pardon her.

Regardless of whether Bernie supporters will or will not go for Hillary, the Democratic party is weaker than it was four or eight years ago. Obama was more of a pop culture movement than a candidate. People voted for him because he had a cool poster and Oprah liked him. Hillary is too corrupt and too well known to get away with it. She isn't energizing their party at all.

As for Trump... I have no idea who is voting for him or why. I may need to self medicate my way through the next few years if he is elected.

See, I don't know if they will.  There's a huge difference between the people that supported Hillary (older establishment Democrats) and the people who are supporting Bernie (younger independents).  The Hillary people knew that if they just got in line for Obama, she'd get the nomination in 2016.  They also supported the party more than just one candidate, and a lot of them were lifelong Democrats who would've voted for the blue candidate regardless.

A lot of Bernie supporters don't care about the Democratic party.  They're supporting a candidate, not a party.  And a lot of them see Hillary as the enemy.  I do agree that a lot of Bernie's people will probably support Hillary if Bernie endorses her, but a lot of them have already come out and said that they'd vote 3rd party even if Bernie tells them too.  There's even a great number of them that will write-in Bernie regardless of whether he runs.  They're young and they don't have any faith in the system.  Their candidate isn't going to get his turn if he doesn't win this election.  And they'd see it as Hillary forcing Bernie to endorse her moreso than anything.

If the Democratic party is able to rally in November, it'll be rallying against Trump....not for Hillary.  For all the stuff she says about being a uniter, she's almost as hated as Trump nationally.

Stein was the Green Party nominee four years ago and got about 1/3 of 1% of the vote.  I doubt she'll do any better this time if she's the Green nominee again.

This election isn't going to be that close.

Another thing about Jill Stein the Greens, ballot access has been severely restricted since 2000.  Right now they're on the ballot in 18 states.  At best they'll get to 25 or 26.  Nader was on in 43.  Part of the reason we haven't had any serious competition for the older parties recently is that they've manipulated the laws to prevent it.

The Democrats are more likely to be united than the Republicans are.  No matter who the Republican nominee is it will be someone most of the party voted against in the primaries.  Kasich even now has fewer votes and delegates than Marco Rubio.  He hasn't won anything but his home state against Trump and Cruz, what makes you think he can do so against Hillary Clinton?

There's also the possibility of a Trump proxy running if he doesn't get the nomination.  His supporters aren't going to get behind Cruz or Kasich or anyone else likely to come out of a contested convention.

They don't have to unite.  If the Republicans don't bother voting, Trump loses.  I think he loses regardless.  Hillary is not well-liked, but Trump's unfavorable numbers are some of the worst of ALL-TIME!  His support is hardcore, but he appeals very poorly to true independent voters.  When pressed for specifics he dodges the question, and he's surely going to make a fool of himself in debates, news conferences, whatever.

#NeverHillary #PrayForIndictment

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magaz … .html?_r=0

Hillary Clinton will go to war before Donald Trump would.  If you're voting for Hillary, you're voting for war.  She'd have troops in Syria in her first 100 days.  I don't think Trump would.

You should investigate the smaller parties.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/char … -1.2626734

Now I loathe Krauthammer, but his op-ed verges on the hilarious.  Of course the "grass roots" or "Tea Party" chose the populist Trump!  NO issues will ever trump (bad pun I know) MONEY!  Abortion, foreign policy, free trade, climate change, whatever.  Throw them all out the window.  When it gets down to it, when you are broke, or struggling, there's nothing more important than money.  Americans work longer hours, get paid shit.  They've fought for decades against health insurers, been taxed to hell, and the like.  The economy greatly benefits the elite wealth class.  Hedge funds not hedge trimmers.  I told friends the MINUTE I saw Trump reference the Carrier plant being moved to Mexico from Indiana, he was going to win as long as he didn't make a complete fool of himself (he's come close several times). 

The Tea Party I always felt was hilarious.  They screamed about Obama, but deep down they are angry about the SAME things liberals are, being crapped on by the wealthy.  Sure the Paul Ryan's have whined that a class war is inappropriate but it's on like Donkey Kong.  Trump's revolution is perhaps just the start.  The days of Wall Street driven imperialism are numbered.  Mitt was their poster boy, and he was roundly rejected by voters.  Again I think Trump's policies are a welcome change, but he himself is not fit for the office.  He's imbalanced, and would be a non-stop source of embarrassment for the nation.  However, the wound he threw salt on was very real.  Economic populism, already rampantly fanned in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere, is here and it's here to stay. 

Which leads me back to the Fox guy.  Republicans took on "conservative" white voters over the years, but they have continued to mistake them for actual conservatives.  Trump knew this.  He saw the opening plain as day.  Sure he was beaten up by Cruz in actual conservative (social and economic) states like Utah or South Dakota or Texas.  But in many a state, like this week in Indiana, Trump flattened Teddy almost entirely on economic populism.  He'll do nothing about it of course, but there is a path there.  Sanders proved it too.  If you take Bernie and Trump supporters, who voted mainly on economics, and combined 75% of them, you win.

Same exact thing could be said of Hillary.  The problem is that Trump can at least claim/lie about being his own man.  Everyone knows for sure that Hillary is in Wall Street's pocket.

I'm not saying you're a Hillbot by any means.  In fact, I'd say you've been the most level-headed in this discussion.  It just sucks that it's come down to what amounts as the two worst candidates that the parties could come up with.

They're both essentially insiders.  They're both gonna end to some sort of war.  They're both elite.  And I don't think either is really interested in making the country better for anyone but the top 1%.  So....great.

The Trump thing could still take a sharp turn. While it's unlikely, there are some avenues by which he would not get the nomination. Which makes it interesting that A. Cruz merely suspended his campaign and did not endorse Trump. I've heard that he's still running ads, but I don't know if that's true.

Paul Ryan has also not endorsed Trump yet. It's been long rumored that the party will try to get Ryan the nomination at the campaign. He says he won't take it, but they always say that.

So, however unlikely it is, there could be more politics going on here. Delegates could decide not to show up to vote for Trump, for example. Crazy things happen at conventions. I'm not saying that I believe anything like that will happen, but I think that there are some interesting angles being played by certain members of the party, each of whom would stand to benefit from a brokered convention.

The problem with the checks and balances is that the politicians have created an elite class for themselves. This is the problem with not having term limits. It allows them to live in the clouds, never beholden to the people who put them in office. They hold onto power by scheming and lying and cheating and stealing. We've seen the Constitution blatantly violated, and nobody is held accountable for it.

One of the safety measures is supposed to be the people of this country. Ultimately, we have the power to change who is in office and how things are done. However, there is a lack of education on many subjects. The media has a lot of power when it comes to what the people know, and therefore how the people think. They distort the truth all the time. Look at the recent racial tensions. A lot of that was caused by misrepresentation of the facts by the media. That misrepresentation of the truth caused anger, which led to crimes, which led to more anger. And the politicians just fueled the fire. Why? Because it's easier to lead herds of people than it is to lead individuals. As long as you keep people in groups, with "us vs them" running through their heads, they unite and become one unit. It's why the country was ever so briefly united after 9/11.

It's possible that discussing politics while editing a dystopian novel is not the best idea.