US Presidential Candidates

PeterZ wrote:So you trying to say utterly stupid and disconnected things in homage to Trump? Why bother? Very few truly think He is a good candidate. We just believe the alternative is much worse. Heck, even significant numbers of Democrats believe this

I should explain: The reason why I said it was because Trump actually said this in a speech about his energy plans: “If I win, believe me we’re going to start opening up the water so that you can have your farmers survive so that your job market will get better.”

As for the alternative being worse: I can't see how. The thing about Trump is that he doesn't produce policy proposals as much as he does soundbites; "We'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it", "Families of Terrorists should be executed too", that sort of thing. When he does go into the nitty gritty details, he gets things wrong or confused, when he talks about his personal accomplishments, he vastly exaggerates or tells outright lies that are easily disproven (like, for example, that bit about him never settling lawsuits? Turns out that he does.). A recent Article on Politico called him a fact checker's nightmare. Please do check that article out, it's hilarious.

Now, granted, lies and exaggerations in campaigns are nothing new. The whole fact checking business didn't spring up from nothing, but what is astonishing about Trump is that he takes Stephen Colbert's concept of "Truthiness" (defined as "the Truth one feels in his heart, not what is written in the textbooks"), and just runs with it. His supporters certainly seem to eat it up.

For this lowly european, a Trump presidency has about the same appeal as Berlusconi's tenure as Italy's Premier. Unless he does a complete flip for the general election (and chances are that he will; there are numerous statements by him that seem to indicate that he's very much playing to his audience right now), I don't see him as someone who can increase America's prosperity. He's far more likely to do something that benefits him personally (like, for example, his plan to make libel lawsuits easier to pull off) than something that's going to benefit the people at large.

In a recent commentary piece on fortune.com, Mark Alderman and Howard Schweitzer collected statements made by Trump about his policies. One running thread throughout was that he believes unpredictability to be a virtue. Now, in many ways, it can be: A military commander with a penchant for unpredictable tactics can be supremely successful. A sports team that is flexible enough to switch tactics mid-game can pull off impressive wins. Even in business, a touch of unpredictability can help.
But that's not what we want from modern politics. What we, as westerners, expect from the state is stability: A reasonable framework for us to work and live in that isn't going to surprise us by suddenly imposing the death penalty for being jewish or something. Trump promises the opposite of that. No, he's probably not going to go on a genocidal rampage across the middle east or something (although, who knows), but he isn't going to be seen as a guarantee for stability.

Then again, there's a certain subset of the american population who would celebrate an unstable US government for some infathomable reason, so maybe he's catering to them?

Regardless, no matter how bad you believe Hillary to be, she isn't one to rock the boat. At worst, she'd be like Germany's Chancellor Merkel: Utterly boring and borderline ineffectual. I don't know about you, but when it comes to politics, I'd rather have boring ineffectiveness over unpredictable bullshit any day.

The E,

Refer back to T2M's post for the way in which the fought was made more severe and how it might have been made less severe.

Until immigrants might be better screened, it makes not sense to have an open invitation for everyone including terrorists to enter.

Until Mexico makes a serious attempt at closing their Norther border, why not charge tarrifs on Mexican goods to pay for a wall? Heck, it will likely be something other than a wall, but at least whatever policy he implements will attempt to secure that border.

As for Hillary can't be worse, the woman set up a "foundation" to enrich herself by selling influence when she was SecState. That corrupt little scheme of hers will be much more lucrative when he is President. This along with quite a few other things makes her complete disdain for those she will govern pretty obvious to us. So, pardon me for scoffing at your desire for a corrupt but predictable US Presidency. We are trying to mitigate what we see as corruption in that office now. Your preference for how we deal with this issues is irrelevant.

PeterZ wrote:The E,
Until immigrants might be better screened, it makes not sense to have an open invitation for everyone including terrorists to enter.

I have not seen anyone proposing to just open the borders and let everyone in.

Given that we do not have mindreading technology yet, how do you propose to weed out the dangerous people from the normal ones? More importantly, what does Trump want to do to increase border security?

Until Mexico makes a serious attempt at closing their Norther border, why not charge tarrifs on Mexican goods to pay for a wall? Heck, it will likely be something other than a wall, but at least whatever policy he implements will attempt to secure that border.

Yeah, sure, just abandon NAFTA, that's going to go over well and will be well-regarded world-wide as an important step towards ensuring that the US shouldn't be taken seriously as a partner in multilateral agreements. It will also do wonders for the Mexican economy.

What it won't do is solve the problem of illegal immigrants from Mexico.

(Also, if you want to secure the border, name this supposed alternative to a wall, please. It is remarkably hard to build an impenetrable border on the scale of the US-Mexican one; I would very much like to hear how you'd do it)

As for Hillary can't be worse, the woman set up a "foundation" to enrich herself by selling influence when she was SecState. That corrupt little scheme of hers will be much more lucrative when he is President. This along with quite a few other things makes her complete disdain for those she will govern pretty obvious to us.

Funny how that doesn't seem to hold up under a fact check, but that doesn't matter, does it? It is, after all, full of "truthiness".

So, pardon me for scoffing at your desire for a corrupt but predictable US Presidency. We are trying to mitigate what we see as corruption in that office now. Your preference for how we deal with this issues is irrelevant.

Okay, thank you for restating your position. Could you now please respond to the things I've actually posted? Because it's well and good to want a less corrupt White House, but which part of Trump's behaviour and statements has convinced you that he can (or, for that matter, wants to) make that happen?

No need to break the terms of NAFTA, but I am sure a vote to exit that treaty is a possibility. If the US has complaints about how loosely Mexico treats our Border compared to its Southern border, I am sure some surcharges can be worked out. Money transfers from the US to Mexico is just one example.

Putting more monitoring technology to make sure border crossers are caught is a start. Simply enforcing the laws and punitive fines for employment of illegals will nicely reduce incentives for illegals to come in. Defining an American citizen as not to include the children of illegal border crosses will go along way to further reduce the incentives for people to cross illegally. Btw, Ellis Island processed many immigrants. Many of whom were rejected for entry. There were examples of pregnant women who gave birth on Ellis Island. Those children were not automatically considered American citizens or even automatically allowed entry. If the parents were ultimately not allowed entry, those children had no standing in the US and were sent back along with the parents.

The combination of reduced incentives and more surveillance along the border will do the trick nicely. Barriers like a wall in strategic places will also help. The isn't to make a Berlin Wall, but to make a barrier that makes it more difficult to enter without being observed and then apprehended.

As for reducing the level of corruption, I don't know nor do I have a great deal of faith that Trump will be stellar in reducing corruption. I do know that Hillary and Bill Clinton have a long history of using their positions in public service to enrich themselves. That article address legalities. Sure they have not been proven to have broken any laws yet. Yet, having large donations made to that foundation from foreign companies that have benefited from Secretary Clinton's decision sure as hell smells really bad. ignore it if you wish, feel free, since this isn't your country. I choose not to.

I am not sure what the FBI's criminal investigation will recommend. I suspect she will not be as legally pure as the driven snow your article suggests is the case.

Daryl wrote:Good one Poker, but how do you know it was Hillary? With Bill it could have been any one of hundreds of women.

That isn't even Bill Clinton, let alone Hillary. It's just a picture of a completely unidentifiable woman and some guy who looks kinda sorta enough like Bill Clinton that some doofus thought they could get away with claiming it was them.

PeterZ wrote:The E,

Refer back to T2M's post for the way in which the fought was made more severe and how it might have been made less severe.

Until immigrants might be better screened, it makes not sense to have an open invitation for everyone including terrorists to enter.

Until Mexico makes a serious attempt at closing their Norther border, why not charge tarrifs on Mexican goods to pay for a wall?

Because beyond you needing to break a signed treaty in order to do that... they will retaliate with their own tariffs, and the US exports more to Mexico than it imports, so it will hurt the US more.

But if you want to shoot the US economy in the foot...

Heck, it will likely be something other than a wall, but at least whatever policy he implements will attempt to secure that border.

As for Hillary can't be worse, the woman set up a "foundation" to enrich herself by selling influence when she was SecState. That corrupt little scheme of hers will be much more lucrative when he is President. This along with quite a few other things makes her complete disdain for those she will govern pretty obvious to us. So, pardon me for scoffing at your desire for a corrupt but predictable US Presidency. We are trying to mitigate what we see as corruption in that office now. Your preference for how we deal with this issues is irrelevant.

Of course the problem with people on the right saying this is that there is no conceivable way their approach results in reduced corruption.


People opposing Clinton from the left want to force the Democratic party to nominate less corrupt candidates in future elections by imposing penalties on them for pushing Clinton through the primary.


People opposing Clinton from the right want to just plain put a con man whose entire life is built on exploiting corruption and swindling people for personal gain in the White House and that's somehow going to make things better because... well because!

There is a wall, or at least a fence, on that border now.
It serves as an Obstacle Course, which determined people
tunnel under, or otherwise get around, thus proving that they
are willing to work hard and endure much to come here.

Thus they differ from Mexicans in the first half of the 20th
century, who could get here merely by taking a train.

The Trump High Thick Wall would need to be very deep indeed,
to succeed in stopping tunnelers!

HTM

Can't believe I agree with you, gcomeau. Yes, we may have to vote to break a treaty. Yes, if we enter into a truly nasty trade war our economy could suffer. Must it end up that way? No. Who will blink first and who can stand the pain longer, eh? China might be more problematic, but they too have their vulnerabilities.

As for the left wanting to nominate an honest man, I agree. I don't agree with Comrade Bernie but would vote for him over Clinton gladly. Unfortunately, I have to choose between someone that might well live up to the trust voters pray he deserves and someone who I KNOW repeatedly hasn't lived up to the trust voters placed in her.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:The E,

Refer back to T2M's post for the way in which the fought was made more severe and how it might have been made less severe.

Until immigrants might be better screened, it makes not sense to have an open invitation for everyone including terrorists to enter.

Until Mexico makes a serious attempt at closing their Norther border, why not charge tarrifs on Mexican goods to pay for a wall?

Because beyond you needing to break a signed treaty in order to do that... they will retaliate with their own tariffs, and the US exports more to Mexico than it imports, so it will hurt the US more.

But if you want to shoot the US economy in the foot...

Heck, it will likely be something other than a wall, but at least whatever policy he implements will attempt to secure that border.

As for Hillary can't be worse, the woman set up a "foundation" to enrich herself by selling influence when she was SecState. That corrupt little scheme of hers will be much more lucrative when he is President. This along with quite a few other things makes her complete disdain for those she will govern pretty obvious to us. So, pardon me for scoffing at your desire for a corrupt but predictable US Presidency. We are trying to mitigate what we see as corruption in that office now. Your preference for how we deal with this issues is irrelevant.

Of course the problem with people on the right saying this is that there is no conceivable way their approach results in reduced corruption.


People opposing Clinton from the left want to force the Democratic party to nominate less corrupt candidates in future elections by imposing penalties on them for pushing Clinton through the primary.


People opposing Clinton from the right want to just plain put a con man whose entire life is built on exploiting corruption and swindling people for personal gain in the White House and that's somehow going to make things better because... well because!

PeterZ wrote:Can't believe I agree with you, gcomeau. Yes, we may have to vote to break a treaty. Yes, if we enter into a truly nasty trade war our economy could suffer. Must it end up that way? No. Who will blink first and who can stand the pain longer, eh? China might be more problematic, but they too have their vulnerabilities.

As for the left wanting to nominate an honest man, I agree. I don't agree with Comrade Bernie but would vote for him over Clinton gladly. Unfortunately, I have to choose between someone that might well live up to the trust voters pray he deserves and someone who I KNOW repeatedly hasn't lived up to the trust voters placed in her.

While I am a long way from a fan of Clinton and frankly am having trouble deciding if it would be worse for her to lose and have to deal with the aftermath of 4 years of a Trump presidency or have her win and have to deal with another 30 or 40 years of the ongoing slide into ever greater corporate corruption people like Clinton have the Democratic party on the path of... having any hope Trump would actually be worthy of trust is an act of either insanity or willful blindness to the man's entire life.

Frankly, the best outcome possible would be the electorate gets so pissed off at the choices being foist on them this election they all jump ship to third and fourth parties in such numbers that the Democrats and Republicans lose their stranglehold on the electoral process. Not that I hold out any hope that will happen... the average US voter is so locked in on the 2 party horse race they treat elections like sporting events where they just have to cheer for "their team" because it's their team.

Again, we agree. I ask you, who is most likely to usher in the sweeping changes you and I desire? Although he certainly won't plan for it, Trump is more likely to the current party apparatus.

So, like me holding my nose and voting for Bernie even though he holds views diametrically opposite mine (should he be running against Clinton in the general election), I recommend that you vote for the candidate most likely to bring about a change in our current party system. As you said, voting Clinton is likely to ensure 30 more years of this rubbish. Voting Trump might well get enough people on either side of the isle ticked enough to usher in serious reform. Heck, I might actually vote for a Democrat 4 years down the road.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Can't believe I agree with you, gcomeau. Yes, we may have to vote to break a treaty. Yes, if we enter into a truly nasty trade war our economy could suffer. Must it end up that way? No. Who will blink first and who can stand the pain longer, eh? China might be more problematic, but they too have their vulnerabilities.

As for the left wanting to nominate an honest man, I agree. I don't agree with Comrade Bernie but would vote for him over Clinton gladly. Unfortunately, I have to choose between someone that might well live up to the trust voters pray he deserves and someone who I KNOW repeatedly hasn't lived up to the trust voters placed in her.

While I am a long way from a fan of Clinton and frankly am having trouble deciding if it would be worse for her to lose and have to deal with the aftermath of 4 years of a Trump presidency or have her win and have to deal with another 30 or 40 years of the ongoing slide into ever greater corporate corruption people like Clinton have the Democratic party on the path of... having any hope Trump would actually be worthy of trust is an act of either insanity or willful blindness to the man's entire life.

Frankly, the best outcome possible would be the electorate gets so pissed off at the choices being foist on them this election they all jump ship to third and fourth parties in such numbers that the Democrats and Republicans lose their stranglehold on the electoral process. Not that I hold out any hope that will happen... the average US voter is so locked in on the 2 party horse race they treat elections like sporting events where they just have to cheer for "their team" because it's their team.