US Presidential Candidates

Hang on, you think the actual corrupt lieing corporate is LESS likely to continue with the slide into corporate corruption?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

PeterZ wrote: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.

There is no possibility of either of the two bringing in desirable sweeping change.

If Clinton wins it will be essentially status quo, she has no desire whatsoever to fundamentally reform the system she benefits so greatly from. Almost guaranteed congressional deadlock on anything but whatever bills sufficiently financially benefit the heavy contributors to both sides of the aisle, perhaps the occasional marginal placating gesture towards social justice, and toss in noticeably more misguided foreign policy approaches that will ensure continued conflict and instability. Clinton has, to the best of my knowledge, never met a proposal for military intervention in the middle east she doesn't like. I don't know if that's overcompensation trying to show how tough she is despite being a guuuurl or what, but it's been her track record.


Trump... will be Trump. Best case scenario is he gets so focused on various efforts to try to set up ways to expand his and his buddies personal bank accounts once he's out of office combined with neither side of the aisle wanting to work with him in Congress that he's too distracted and restricted to do any real damage (except to America's global image and reputation of course, that's just going to have to be written off for a while).

Worst case is he actually tries to do even a fraction of the incredibly idiotic things he's said he wants to do and the next president (or 2, or 3) will be able to get almost nothing done in their terms but cleanup and damage control.


I only see one possibility for desirable reform, and it won't be brought by either candidate winning but rather the manner in which they win or lose.

If Clinton loses for example in a manner that makes it clear that the left/liberal electorate simply walked away (either hugely depressed turnout, or large swing of voters to third parties like the Greens in a protest vote) rather than vote for her that could send the wake up call that is necessary to force reform in that party. If on the other hand Clinton loses because a lot of people switched over to vote for Trump as a protest then I can almost guarantee the outcome. The entire Democratic establishment will saddle up and say "well there's what we need to do to win.... be more Trump-like!!!" While of course the GOP will be jumping up and down that they won and ALSO try to be more Trump-like cause it worked!

Disaster.

You really don't know the GOP, do you? There are as many who agree with you regarding the corruption. The establishment are just like Clinton. Heck, they want Clinton! Bill Krystol anyone?

I can see your scenarios working out. I can also see Trump trying to align his own "establishment" after winning the election which will make the blue collar crossovers and the anti-establishment GOP furious. That group has already voted for ABE: anybody but establishment. Had Bernie ran as a Republican he would have won this year....well maybe not, but if Trump won so could Bernie.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote: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.

There is no possibility of either of the two bringing in desirable sweeping change.

If Clinton wins it will be essentially status quo, she has no desire whatsoever to fundamentally reform the system she benefits so greatly from. Almost guaranteed congressional deadlock on anything but whatever bills sufficiently financially benefit the heavy contributors to both sides of the aisle, perhaps the occasional marginal placating gesture towards social justice, and toss in noticeably more misguided foreign policy approaches that will ensure continued conflict and instability. Clinton has, to the best of my knowledge, never met a proposal for military intervention in the middle east she doesn't like. I don't know if that's overcompensation trying to show how tough she is despite being a guuuurl or what, but it's been her track record.


Trump... will be Trump. Best case scenario is he gets so focused on various efforts to try to set up ways to expand his and his buddies personal bank accounts once he's out of office combined with neither side of the aisle wanting to work with him in Congress that he's too distracted and restricted to do any real damage (except to America's global image and reputation of course, that's just going to have to be written off for a while).

Worst case is he actually tries to do even a fraction of the incredibly idiotic things he's said he wants to do and the next president (or 2, or 3) will be able to get almost nothing done in their terms but cleanup and damage control.


I only see one possibility for desirable reform, and it won't be brought by either candidate winning but rather the manner in which they win or lose.

If Clinton loses for example in a manner that makes it clear that the left/liberal electorate simply walked away (either hugely depressed turnout, or large swing of voters to third parties like the Greens in a protest vote) rather than vote for her that could send the wake up call that is necessary to force reform in that party. If on the other hand Clinton loses because a lot of people switched over to vote for Trump as a protest then I can almost guarantee the outcome. The entire Democratic establishment will saddle up and say "well there's what we need to do to win.... be more Trump-like!!!" While of course the GOP will be jumping up and down that they won and ALSO try to be more Trump-like cause it worked!

Disaster.

Actually, yes. We know Clinton will use her influence to enrich herself. We also know she is both shameless and adept at finessing public corruption. We don't know if Trump is adept enough at politics to pull off Clintonesque public corruption. He hasn't had nearly 60 years to organize his coterie in public corruption.

Annachie wrote:Hang on, you think the actual corrupt lieing corporate is LESS likely to continue with the slide into corporate corruption?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

PeterZ wrote:You really don't know the GOP, do you? There are as many who agree with you regarding the corruption. The establishment are just like Clinton. Heck, they want Clinton! Bill Krystol anyone?

That should have read "The GOP establishment will be jumping up and down..."

Basically, the politicians in both parties will make themselves more Trump-like if the vote shows being that way gets you lots of votes.

At that point, Idiocracy here we come.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:You really don't know the GOP, do you? There are as many who agree with you regarding the corruption. The establishment are just like Clinton. Heck, they want Clinton! Bill Krystol anyone?

That should have read "The GOP establishment will be jumping up and down..."

Basically, the politicians in both parties will make themselves more Trump-like if the vote shows being that way gets you lots of votes.

At that point, Idiocracy here we come.

Not necessarily. Yes, they will move to be more like Trump, but how?

If they move more towards a populist agenda, they might well become a better Trump. Think about what made Bernie popular. Trump is targeting similar goals but supports different means. Socialism is a poor choice to achieve higher standards of living for ANY class save the elite. Often it is the best choice available, but that isn't true in the US. The US is vastly more wealthy than the majority of nations, but the distribution of that wealth has skewed increasingly away from the middle/working class as seen by the falling median wage.

Solutions that effectively address this unfortunate state of affairs will coalesce the honest lefties and conservatives. You on the left hate the wealthy and conservatives hate the power elites. They are largely the same group, but different aspects of that group offends the people at the ends of the political poles differently. Together we can keep that group in check covering each other's blind spots.

Lefties are blind to the need for an efficient economy that facilitates increase in wealth through a profit motive. Most lefties view this process as somehow immoral. They are comfortable using the coercive power of the state to combat this.

Conservatives view the aggregation of power into the hands of the state as the principal threat. Syphoning power into the private sector is viewed as the optimal tool to combat that threat. We tend to be dismissive of the collected power of the private sector when power is aggregated into too few hands.

So, yes, I am all for shattering the establishment in both parties first and foremost. Afterwards we can begin beating each other with large clue sticks to keep the elites in check. Lefties to keep the private sector from aggregative wealth and power into too few hands. Conservatives to keep government from taking too much of our individual liberties/sovereignty.

PeterZ wrote:Not necessarily. Yes, they will move to be more like Trump, but how?

If they move more towards a populist agenda, they might well become a better Trump.

There is no redeeming quality in anything Trump is or is doing which could be interpreted as an improvement in the political class if they moved towards it.

Trump is not running a populist campaign, he is running a carnival side show / reality television production/ huckster informercial writ large. A populist campaign would involve a policy based movement to see to the needs of the general population, not a ranting substanceless semi-incoherent stroking of the ID of the mob.

Think about what made Bernie popular. Trump is targeting similar goals but supports different means.

What made Bernie popular is he has a lifelong record of actually giving a crap about the people he wants to represent in government. Trump is not by any stretch of the imagination similar or pursuing similar goals. He is, as he has done in every endeavor he has ever undertaken in his entire life, running a con with the sole aim of improving the lot in life of one Donald Trump no matter the cost to anyone around him.

Socialism is a poor choice to achieve higher standards of living for ANY class save the elite.

Democratic Socialism. Not Socialism.

Democratic Socialism is as much Socialism as New Mexico is Mexico.

Often it is the best choice available, but that isn't true in the US. The US is vastly more wealthy than the majority of nations, but the distribution of that wealth has skewed increasingly away from the middle/working class as seen by the falling median wage.

Of course it has, that's what always happens in an insufficiently regulated free market with no checks and balances that establish some level of safety valve on the manner in which the wealth of the nation is distributed. The american middle class was primarily built in the 40s, 50s and 60s... when union memberships were at their highest and the progressive tax system was at it's most progressive. Then Reagan gutted it all, attacked the unions, slashed the upper tax brackets. What do you expect to happen when you simultaneously undermine the ability of workers to wield any level of negotiating leverage with management and pull the stops out on the ability of the wealthiest people to accrue ever increasing levels of wealth? Well... this. This happens:

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4227239/ ... orical.png

Solutions that effectively address this unfortunate state of affairs will coalesce the honest lefties and conservatives. You on the left hate the wealthy

NO WE DON'T.

Nobody gives a shit about "the wealthy" in isolation. If you earned your wealth honestly good for you. The problem is far too many of the wealthy in this country didn't, they accrued their wealth through means of a rigged system and by exploiting and screwing over the work forces that made them all that money. The people on the left HATE THE SYSTEM and any of the wealthy who actively defend and perpetuate it because it benefits them.

And conservatives, unfortunately, tend to want to make that system even worse under the misguided belief it will somehow help them.

Lefties are blind to the need for an efficient economy that facilitates increase in wealth through a profit motive.

Ok, seriously, read up on the Nordic model.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy) refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government; and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.

It bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to your "leftie" preconceptions and stereotypes. None.

As for how effective that approach is, the countries that employ it (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark...) have higher economic/social mobility, lower wealth inequality... and just generally happier and healthier populations all around.

For quite a while the killing of the Gorilla in Cincinnati was a racially charged issue. "They would not have killed the gorilla if the kid was black, that's white privilege, racism."
Then we learn the kid and both parents are black. We'be seen the rigged elections in both major parties. We the people have been divided into small camp, racism is worse now than any time I can remember. Martin Luther King's dream has become a nightmare of disunity. Eight years ago it was Bush's fault, well now it's Obama's fault, you broke it you own it.

Poker

Good post and I'll tag along regarding the "Nordic Model" in that countries like Australia and New Zealand have a very similar ethos and approach. I don't think it is a coincidence that the Scandinavian countries plus us have a few similarities in that from the UN, OECD, IMF etc reports - we recovered from the GFC earlier and with less scars, we compete for the longest life expectancy tables, plus we compete for surveys of best places to live in the world, and happiest populations.
Our system works, and we are at least as free as people in the US if not freer. It is hard for your boss to oppress you if you have a welfare net to fall back on if he sacks you.

Incidentally have people here seen how Switzerland is having a referendum on providing every citizen with a living stipend regardless of status? They doubt it will pass, but expect the country to work towards it over the next few decades.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Not necessarily. Yes, they will move to be more like Trump, but how?

If they move more towards a populist agenda, they might well become a better Trump.

There is no redeeming quality in anything Trump is or is doing which could be interpreted as an improvement in the political class if they moved towards it.

Trump is not running a populist campaign, he is running a carnival side show / reality television production/ huckster informercial writ large. A populist campaign would involve a policy based movement to see to the needs of the general population, not a ranting substanceless semi-incoherent stroking of the ID of the mob.

Think about what made Bernie popular. Trump is targeting similar goals but supports different means.

What made Bernie popular is he has a lifelong record of actually giving a crap about the people he wants to represent in government. Trump is not by any stretch of the imagination similar or pursuing similar goals. He is, as he has done in every endeavor he has ever undertaken in his entire life, running a con with the sole aim of improving the lot in life of one Donald Trump no matter the cost to anyone around him.

Socialism is a poor choice to achieve higher standards of living for ANY class save the elite.

Democratic Socialism. Not Socialism.

Democratic Socialism is as much Socialism as New Mexico is Mexico.

Often it is the best choice available, but that isn't true in the US. The US is vastly more wealthy than the majority of nations, but the distribution of that wealth has skewed increasingly away from the middle/working class as seen by the falling median wage.

Of course it has, that's what always happens in an insufficiently regulated free market with no checks and balances that establish some level of safety valve on the manner in which the wealth of the nation is distributed. The american middle class was primarily built in the 40s, 50s and 60s... when union memberships were at their highest and the progressive tax system was at it's most progressive. Then Reagan gutted it all, attacked the unions, slashed the upper tax brackets. What do you expect to happen when you simultaneously undermine the ability of workers to wield any level of negotiating leverage with management and pull the stops out on the ability of the wealthiest people to accrue ever increasing levels of wealth? Well... this. This happens:

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4227239/ ... orical.png

Solutions that effectively address this unfortunate state of affairs will coalesce the honest lefties and conservatives. You on the left hate the wealthy

NO WE DON'T.

Nobody gives a shit about "the wealthy" in isolation. If you earned your wealth honestly good for you. The problem is far too many of the wealthy in this country didn't, they accrued their wealth through means of a rigged system and by exploiting and screwing over the work forces that made them all that money. The people on the left HATE THE SYSTEM and any of the wealthy who actively defend and perpetuate it because it benefits them.

And conservatives, unfortunately, tend to want to make that system even worse under the misguided belief it will somehow help them.

Lefties are blind to the need for an efficient economy that facilitates increase in wealth through a profit motive.

Ok, seriously, read up on the Nordic model.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy) refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government; and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.

It bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to your "leftie" preconceptions and stereotypes. None.

As for how effective that approach is, the countries that employ it (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark...) have higher economic/social mobility, lower wealth inequality... and just generally happier and healthier populations all around.

thinkstoomuch wrote:

The E wrote:Meanwhile, on the idiotic side of the party debate: Did you know that you could fix California's drought problem by just turning the water back on?

Actually you got it backwards it was to turn the water back off.
...

Nah, the rule of funny clearly says it was the former!



#####

pokermind wrote:I'm beginning to think all party's candidates are insane!

Poker

Looks like you´ve had your brilliant epiphany of the day!


#####

The E wrote:The nice thing about Trump is that, as long as you say something utterly stupid or disconnected from reality or both, chances are that he will have said it.

He´s just saying it like it is!

Or possibly baffling the easily fooled with bullshit.