US Presidential Candidates

Not really. His only non-moderate position appears to be that on illegal immigrants. His history suggests his views were similar to Clinton's in most other respects. His views on abortion changed recently which suggests a more moderate tendency.

Spacekiwi wrote:Compared to him, isnt almost any other cadidate a moderate?

PeterZ wrote:That strategy would work if the Dems had even a mediocre candidate to run against him. It doesn't appear that they do.

PeterZ wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:Compared to him, isnt almost any other cadidate a moderate?

Not really. His only non-moderate position appears to be that on illegal immigrants. His history suggests his views were similar to Clinton's in most other respects. His views on abortion changed recently which suggests a more moderate tendency.

I'm unable to muster any response except laughing at my screen on this...

So, what does he actually stand for then? Apart from immigration, what concrete policy stands has he had?

PeterZ wrote:Not really. His only non-moderate position appears to be that on illegal immigrants. His history suggests his views were similar to Clinton's in most other respects. His views on abortion changed recently which suggests a more moderate tendency.

Trump only has a high profile because he's not as boring as the other candidates. All the malcontented yay-hoos are cheering him on, and the media loves him because he creates "buzz". His chance of actually getting the Republican nomination approximates my chance of spending the weekend in a hot tub with the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. If he somehow does get nominated, or manages to bankrupt himself as a third-party candidate, we of the true "Silent Majority" -- the people with common sense -- will ensure that his egotistical ass never sits down in the Oval Office.

Spacekiwi wrote:So, what does he actually stand for then? Apart from immigration, what concrete policy stands has he had?

PeterZ wrote:Not really. His only non-moderate position appears to be that on illegal immigrants. His history suggests his views were similar to Clinton's in most other respects. His views on abortion changed recently which suggests a more moderate tendency.

Well, on the foreign policy front he recently said the way to deal with ISIS was to, and this is a brilliant strategy that must have taken weeks of intense planning... bomb them then send in the oil companies to take away all their oil.


If only anyone else had thought of that...

Heck if I know. I am not a fan. Just glad he is talking about the immigration issue.

Spacekiwi wrote:So, what does he actually stand for then? Apart from immigration, what concrete policy stands has he had?

PeterZ wrote:Not really. His only non-moderate position appears to be that on illegal immigrants. His history suggests his views were similar to Clinton's in most other respects. His views on abortion changed recently which suggests a more moderate tendency.

PeterZ wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:So, what does he actually stand for then? Apart from immigration, what concrete policy stands has he had?

Heck if I know. I am not a fan. Just glad he is talking about the immigration issue.

Heck if you know? Seriously?

One post ago you were making pronouncements about how Trumps policy positions were all pretty much moderate except the immigration thing and that he was basically lined up with Clinton on most stuff... and now one post later you don't know what his policy positions are?


So, you feel comfortable evaluating the extremism or moderation of political policies without the bothersome little detail of actually knowing what those policies are then?

The distinction is not between "private" and "government" jobs, it's between productive and non-productive. Productive work creates value by making things that are worth more than they cost; the difference is called "profit". Not all private jobs are productive, but almost no government jobs are. Government drones filling out government forms do not create value. Police, courts and military forces do not create value either. They are essential services, but they remain a burden that must be paid for by productive work performed in the larger economy. All of government is dependent on productive work, which is almost entirely done outside of government. Unless you want the government to control the means of production?

Every dollar those government employees spend to "stimulate the economy" has been taken from somebody who now doesn't have it to spend, or from a business that now can't afford to hire another worker. Passing it through a government employee has not made it worth any more, and the original owner would have "stimulated the economy" at least as much by spending it herself.

Of course the jobs they killed won't "magically" reappear, but continuing to take the money will prevent them from being restored.
-------------------------
Governments can only print money; they can't make it worth anything.

And what about the indirect profits a government allows by governing, and the prevention/reduction of costs through regulation? What about the ability of the government to prevent excess inflation and deflation, through control of the money supply? The government is certainly productive, just not entirely in direct ways.

How much less of an economy would the US have without your Interstate system? The Hoover dam? How much money is brought into the US from tourists visiting your national and state parks? How much money does the Grand Canyon generate? How about NASA? Spaceflight? GPS? Military anti pirate operations to keep sea-lanes clear to allow goods into the US? Border guards preventing unlimited immigration and reducing criminal activity?

Individual government jobs may seem unproductive short term, but long term a government is productive. It produces a functioning society.

Imaginos1892 wrote:The distinction is not between "private" and "government" jobs, it's between productive and non-productive. Productive work creates value by making things that are worth more than they cost; the difference is called "profit". Not all private jobs are productive, but almost no government jobs are. Government drones filling out government forms do not create value. Police, courts and military forces do not create value either. They are essential services, but they remain a burden that must be paid for by productive work performed in the larger economy. All of government is dependent on productive work, which is almost entirely done outside of government. Unless you want the government to control the means of production?

Every dollar those government employees spend to "stimulate the economy" has been taken from somebody who now doesn't have it to spend, or from a business that now can't afford to hire another worker. Passing it through a government employee has not made it worth any more, and the original owner would have "stimulated the economy" at least as much by spending it herself.

Of course the jobs they killed won't "magically" reappear, but continuing to take the money will prevent them from being restored.
-------------------------
Governments can only print money; they can't make it worth anything.

dscott8 wrote:Trump only has a high profile because he's not as boring as the other candidates. All the malcontented yay-hoos are cheering him on, and the media loves him because he creates "buzz". His chance of actually getting the Republican nomination approximates my chance of spending the weekend in a hot tub with the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. If he somehow does get nominated, or manages to bankrupt himself as a third-party candidate, we of the true "Silent Majority" -- the people with common sense -- will ensure that his egotistical ass never sits down in the Oval Office.

He's doing rather poorly in the second (+) choice polls i.e. if your candidate drops out who would be your second, third etc choice. The votes of normal Republicans are very divided right now with 17 candidates. But as the race progresses with actual primaries and people start dropping out.... Right now the average Republican voter supports about 7 candidates, so if their 1st choice drops out they will happily support their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th choice.