Presidential Race 2016

[Ernest Jones]

10 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Totally fair and I completely get that.  I might very well end up in a position to do the exact same thing but in reverse - reluctantly vote for Hillary more as just a "not Trump" vote.  My questions were directed at those (like @Braivo and @RandallT) who seem genuinely excited and happy for Trump to be President.

Yeah. I get the folks that see a Trump vote as a lesser of two evils (I disagree, but I get it), but I am flat out blown away by those that truly want Trump. 

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

You are forgetting this main point, Trump has not even begun to sell himself to the American people at large. Take a few minutes and read through Scott Adams' articles on persuasion. He characterizes Trump as the Master Persuader and he has been right this entire time, first calling Trump our next POTUS on August 2, 2015. 

So he's a con-artist. Here's the thing. When you are making a deal with the American people to get their vote, you are selling them a platform to run on for their support. If you switch your platform then you are no better than a sleazy con-artist who uses the bait and switch tactic. 

For a guy who's labelled himself and outsider, not a career politician, he's acting like all dirtiest politician. Willing to say what needs to be said to get your vote, then throw you under the bus when it's said and done. 

1 hour ago, Braivo said:

I have read his books and studied his positions. I support him because I truly believe he cares about America. His quality character is confirmed by the thousands of happy, loyal employees. It is also supported by his charity work that he does quietly as he does not seek attention for his efforts. There are dozens of confirmed stories of him paying off waitresses mortgages as a tip, or giving someone $50,000 who stopped to help him when he had a flat tire, etc. 

That is great, THEN RUN ON THAT! I would support him a lot more if he sold the positives he does instead of acting like a rabid pit bull. 

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

I don't believe he is saying whatever it takes to get elected, I believe he has a pulse on the American people and what they want in a leader. He refines his position to match what Americans want, I see nothing wrong with that, as he will work for us, not the other way around. 

I do, it's called screwing those who got you the primary. In the end if he wants to be a populist candidate then run as an independent. 

56 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Totally fair and I completely get that.  I might very well end up in a position to do the exact same thing but in reverse - reluctantly vote for Hillary more as just a "not Trump" vote.  My questions were directed at those (like @Braivo and @RandallT) who seem genuinely excited and happy for Trump to be President.

I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson. I'm hoping that he can win enough electoral votes to send the decision to the House of Representative to choose. If no one gets 270 electoral votes then the House chooses the President. One, it would be awesome to have it happen in my lifetime. Two, I think they would seriously consider Gary Johnson over Trump and Hillary. Especially those in the House who want to slash welfare and keep spending to a minimum. 

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House. 

[Chilli Dipper]

47 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Yeah. I get the folks that see a Trump vote as a lesser of two evils (I disagree, but I get it), but I am flat out blown away by those that truly want Trump. 

What gets me is how, for the last seven-plus years, all I've heard is people talking about how Obama is taking away their freedom, and how the country needs a president who will stop the expansion of executive power and restore the office to what the Constitution meant it to be. Now, all of the people who have gone on and on about that have ethuastically backed a candidate in whose speeches the words "freedom" and "liberty" hardly ever appear; whose platform can be broadly summarized as "when I'm in charge, everybody is going to do as I say;" and whose relevant career experience is being in charge of what is effectively a one-man business empire, where he has complete authority over all decision-making. Combine that with his disregard for American conservative political philosophy, it's difficult to locate any sense of principle in Republicans' support of him.

[RandallT]

7 hours ago, Gunther said:

You know the media, both cons. and lib, is going to push him this time since most of his votes will be pulled from Trump.  He polled at 11% earlier this month.  He scares me as I could see him doing what Perot did to Bush 41 in '92.  I generally like a libertarian platform but because he's not viable, I could never vote for him.

This election is a tough one, as every candidate seems somewhat fatally flawed. Hold my nose and pick one, I suppose. Johnson aligns more closely to my beliefs than anyone, but you gotta consider the impact of voting Libertarian. Plus, he doesn't seem to have the gravitas of a president. Don't think he's the guy to win.

7 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

I don't think he cares about anyone's freedoms; and I think that he'd expand executive powers much further than even his two predecessors did.

This is my main worry about Trump. Like I've said a few times on this thread, if Trump gets elected, I look forward to the left joining me in opposing rampant federal powers. I think it's now possible to use the federal bureaucracy to punish enemies through many different methods, with very little accountability or transparency. I think the federal government needs to be taken down several pegs, and Trump doesn't have that on his agenda. If anything, he might be out for some payback, and he'll use the machinery to intimidate.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Totally fair and I completely get that.  I might very well end up in a position to do the exact same thing but in reverse - reluctantly vote for Hillary more as just a "not Trump" vote.  My questions were directed at those (like @Braivo and @RandallT) who seem genuinely excited and happy for Trump to be President.

Genuinely excited and happy would not be how I'd phrase it . I've written about possibilities of how he could do this to make inroads into his deficit to Clinton. I didn't mean to imply I'm an ardent supporter- just gaming it out with an open mind.

Anyway, I've tried to be fair to Trump, but there's quite a bit there that concerns me there. To start with: he gets into very confrontational situations more often than I would want in my president (on large and small things like Megyn Kelly, Heidi Cruz pic), he doesn't seem to discuss the constitution much (nor seem to concerned about it limiting him), and he has a habit of saying outrageous, unfiltered things without vetting it through people who might steer him toward a more sensible approach (banning all Muslim immigration, targeting terrorist families which is a war crime, etc).

With all that said, I think there may be an intelligent case to be made for him:

1. He's a leader. He's inspirational in a way I haven't seen in a long time. I won't compare to Reagan/Clinton/Obama because he's his own style, but there's a way he connects that is all his own. It works for about half of the people, apparently. But there's no denying that he connects with people in a positive way.
2. He has actually achieved stuff. Say what you will about his bankruptcies, but the man gets things done. He rolls up his sleeves and gets down to work. He brings in good people, treats them well (by many accounts), and he doesn't get distracted with a lot of shenanigans. He's a do-er, he grooms people well from what I've heard (men and women!) and that's refreshing. What other leader out there has really done anything real, just political stuff like speeches and votes?
3. He has a sense of the pulse of the nation, rather than him being the one driving the issues that are elevating him. Trump resonates, because he is hearing what concerns people (I know many say he is stoking fear and anger, but I consider that a bit hyperbolic).
4. He's bold/brave. Hearing people's concerns, who else would propose the stuff he is proposing? Nobody. He is fearless. If he is wrong (or illegal), I have faith that he can be swayed to change course, but when he feels he has an answer to people's concerns, we can rely on him to tell us what he's thinking. (this could also be a negative!)
5. He's willing to listen and adapt. Flip-flop? Unprincipled? Maybe- but Trump is strong enough he can sell it as being convinced of the other side's argument. Rare a politician can get away with that, but he seems to break the rules. I am not a dealmaker kinda guy, but I get the sense much of this stuff is opening gambits, and he can work with people. Some level of crazy can be good in a leader, because he might be a better negotiator as a result. 
6. He communicates. Often. And clearly. Whether you like what he says or not. The anger is because he just says it too plainly. Straightforward opinions cause anger. While I'm not confrontational personally (I never discuss politics in person unless I know you real well, in fact), maybe we need to all state what we think more clearly and stop getting so upset with differing opinions. 

Anyway, that's the broad outline of what I tell myself might be a good thing about Trump. You all have seen that I'm mainly a limited federal government guy, so Trump was not my guy. Overall, the candidates this cycle have been WEAK. All caps for screaming. Of the folks left, only Gary Johnson is aligned with my core beliefs. But now I have to game it out... if voting for Johnson means Clinton, then I'd have pause voting on my principles (yes Clinton is that bad to me). 

Whoever gets elected though, life goes on, and we raise our kids with the best values we can instill in them. There's still golf. Unless Bernie includes free golf with free universities.

 

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, RandallT said:

1. But there's no denying that he connects with people in a positive way.

 It seems like half his message is positive, make America Great, and then he just says something that's like throwing gasoline on a fire like claiming illegal immigrants are rapist and murderers. 

5 minutes ago, RandallT said:

1. He has a sense of the pulse of the nation, rather than him being the one driving the issues that are elevating him. Trump resonates, because he is hearing what concerns people (I know many say he is stoking fear and anger, but I consider that a bit hyperbolic).

I'm not sure he does have the pulse of the nation. When the unfavorable rating for him is in the 55-60% range. You'd think a populist candidate,strategy would have a more favorable rating?

If he does have a pulse of the nation then it might be his personality that is turning people off? If so, then would it be woresome if he doesn't start acting more presidential soon? 

In Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. When asked, "Would you say that Donald Trump - cares about the needs and problems of people
like you or not?". All three state had 58% of the people answer no, and Hillary got near the same percentage. Also both Hillary and Trump got a 60-65% No when asked if you can trust them. 

People basically do not think either candidate cares about their needs, or that they can trust them. Yet they are willing to vote for them because they are stuck in this two party system. 

8 minutes ago, RandallT said:

1. He's willing to listen and adapt. Flip-flop? Unprincipled? Maybe- but Trump is strong enough he can sell it as being convinced of the other side's argument. Rare a politician can get away with that, but he seems to break the rules. 

Though it is early yet, and I'm not sure what the fallout will be for him starting to lean liberal. 

22 minutes ago, RandallT said:

1. He communicates. Often. And clearly. Whether you like what he says or not. The anger is because he just says it too plainly. Straightforward opinions cause anger. While I'm not confrontational personally (I never discuss it in person, in fact), maybe we need to all state what we think more clearly and stop getting so upset with differing opinions. 

Sometimes he's a pretty good communicator. Other times he's just  all over the place. In the end, I don't grade him a great speaker because he hardly ever stays on point. 

25 minutes ago, RandallT said:

Anyway, that's the broad outline of what I tell myself might be a good thing about Trump. You all have seen that I'm mainly a limited federal government guy, so Trump was not my guy. Overall, the candidates this cycle have been WEAK. All caps for screaming. Of the folks left, only Gary Johnson is aligned with my core beliefs. But now I have to game it out... if voting for Johnson means Clinton, then I'd have pause voting on my principles (yes Clinton is that bad to me). 

In the end I rather vote for a guy who I want to stand behind. I get people will say, "Not voting for Trump is voting for Hillary." Well, I believe we need a third party and i'm going to vote for the guy I want to support. A real third party movement has to start sometime. Might as well start now. 

 

[Dave2512]

14 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

What gets me is how, for the last seven-plus years, all I've heard is people talking about how Obama is taking away their freedom, and how the country needs a president who will stop the expansion of executive power and restore the office to what the Constitution meant it to be. Now, all of the people who have gone on and on about that have ethuastically backed a candidate in whose speeches the words "freedom" and "liberty" hardly ever appear; whose platform can be broadly summarized as "when I'm in charge, everybody is going to do as I say;" and whose relevant career experience is being in charge of what is effectively a one-man business empire, where he has complete authority over all decision-making. Combine that with his disregard for American conservative political philosophy, it's difficult to locate any sense of principle in Republicans' support of him.

Yep he has zero experience in politics, this was a HUGE conservative point of attack on Obama 2008. 

I don't think Trump is the anti Hillary and he's hasn't demonstrated he's more than a presidential character actor. When you hear the nominee saying stuff like his vp pick will need to be someone with political experience to offset his lack of experience that sounds like trouble. If Trump was a democrat, he's not far from it and has been rubbing elbows with them for years, republicans would be running away from him and fast.

I see him as a be careful what you wish for choice. Things could be a lot worse than they are now. If he wins and puts the country in the shitter we will all be longing for the good old days when our gripe was health insurance premiums that are measly 1000 a year more than years past while spending 5000 a year on greens fees. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Golfingdad]

15 hours ago, RandallT said:

This election is a tough one, as every candidate seems somewhat fatally flawed. Hold my nose and pick one, I suppose. Johnson aligns more closely to my beliefs than anyone, but you gotta consider the impact of voting Libertarian. Plus, he doesn't seem to have the gravitas of a president. Don't think he's the guy to win.

This is my main worry about Trump. Like I've said a few times on this thread, if Trump gets elected, I look forward to the left joining me in opposing rampant federal powers. I think it's now possible to use the federal bureaucracy to punish enemies through many different methods, with very little accountability or transparency. I think the federal government needs to be taken down several pegs, and Trump doesn't have that on his agenda. If anything, he might be out for some payback, and he'll use the machinery to intimidate.

Genuinely excited and happy would not be how I'd phrase it . I've written about possibilities of how he could do this to make inroads into his deficit to Clinton. I didn't mean to imply I'm an ardent supporter- just gaming it out with an open mind.

Anyway, I've tried to be fair to Trump, but there's quite a bit there that concerns me there. To start with: he gets into very confrontational situations more often than I would want in my president (on large and small things like Megyn Kelly, Heidi Cruz pic), he doesn't seem to discuss the constitution much (nor seem to concerned about it limiting him), and he has a habit of saying outrageous, unfiltered things without vetting it through people who might steer him toward a more sensible approach (banning all Muslim immigration, targeting terrorist families which is a war crime, etc).

With all that said, I think there may be an intelligent case to be made for him:

1. He's a leader. He's inspirational in a way I haven't seen in a long time. I won't compare to Reagan/Clinton/Obama because he's his own style, but there's a way he connects that is all his own. It works for about half of the people, apparently. But there's no denying that he connects with people in a positive way.
2. He has actually achieved stuff. Say what you will about his bankruptcies, but the man gets things done. He rolls up his sleeves and gets down to work. He brings in good people, treats them well (by many accounts), and he doesn't get distracted with a lot of shenanigans. He's a do-er, he grooms people well from what I've heard (men and women!) and that's refreshing. What other leader out there has really done anything real, just political stuff like speeches and votes?
3. He has a sense of the pulse of the nation, rather than him being the one driving the issues that are elevating him. Trump resonates, because he is hearing what concerns people (I know many say he is stoking fear and anger, but I consider that a bit hyperbolic).
4. He's bold/brave. Hearing people's concerns, who else would propose the stuff he is proposing? Nobody. He is fearless. If he is wrong (or illegal), I have faith that he can be swayed to change course, but when he feels he has an answer to people's concerns, we can rely on him to tell us what he's thinking. (this could also be a negative!)
5. He's willing to listen and adapt. Flip-flop? Unprincipled? Maybe- but Trump is strong enough he can sell it as being convinced of the other side's argument. Rare a politician can get away with that, but he seems to break the rules. I am not a dealmaker kinda guy, but I get the sense much of this stuff is opening gambits, and he can work with people. Some level of crazy can be good in a leader, because he might be a better negotiator as a result. 
6. He communicates. Often. And clearly. Whether you like what he says or not. The anger is because he just says it too plainly. Straightforward opinions cause anger. While I'm not confrontational personally (I never discuss politics in person unless I know you real well, in fact), maybe we need to all state what we think more clearly and stop getting so upset with differing opinions. 

Anyway, that's the broad outline of what I tell myself might be a good thing about Trump. You all have seen that I'm mainly a limited federal government guy, so Trump was not my guy. Overall, the candidates this cycle have been WEAK. All caps for screaming. Of the folks left, only Gary Johnson is aligned with my core beliefs. But now I have to game it out... if voting for Johnson means Clinton, then I'd have pause voting on my principles (yes Clinton is that bad to me). 

Whoever gets elected though, life goes on, and we raise our kids with the best values we can instill in them. There's still golf. Unless Bernie includes free golf with free universities.

 

Good answers, thanks. :). I disagree with much of it ;), but this does make some sense.

[newtogolf]

17 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Totally fair and I completely get that.  I might very well end up in a position to do the exact same thing but in reverse - reluctantly vote for Hillary more as just a "not Trump" vote.  My questions were directed at those (like @Braivo and @RandallT) who seem genuinely excited and happy for Trump to be President.

I doubt there are many real republicans that are excited about Trump.  What's exciting about the role Trump is playing this election is that he's an outsider, non-establishment and for many fiscal conservatives (me) we're tired of our party being just as guilty as the democrats of running up the national debt.  

No one really knows where Trump stands on major issues, I like his current position on illegal immigration and trade but beyond that he's spoken out of both sides of his mouth.  Honestly, I don't think he knows where he stands on a lot of these issues because he hasn't dedicated the time and effort to learn all the details about them.  Supporting planned parenthood (which I do) is about more than just being pro choice or pro life.  Budgets and tax plans are more than just cost reductions and tax increases or reductions.  

Like it or not our federal government has grown far larger than it was intended to.  It employs many more people than it should and reaches deeper into states rights than it should but you just can't make sweeping changes without consideration for the impact it would have on our economy and position in the world.  I think ObamaCare it its current implementation is a complete disaster but what's the impact to individuals and the economy if we just shut it down?   I don't know and I doubt Trump does either.  

Trump has not had any exposure to all of the dependencies that exist and until he does, any positions he has today are uninformed and likely hollow words.  I remember when Obama ran 8 years ago, he swore he'd be transparent, much more than GW was, he quickly found out that it's difficult to get things done and be completely transparent.  

I don't envy Trump or Hillary at this point because they are going to have a tough 4 years getting things back on track.   

[Elmer]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

 

Like it or not our federal government has grown far larger than it was intended to.  It employs many more people than it should and reaches deeper into states rights than it should but you just can't make sweeping changes without consideration for the impact it would have on our economy and position in the world.  I think ObamaCare it its current implementation is a complete disaster but what's the impact to individuals and the economy if we just shut it down?   I don't know and I doubt Trump does either.  

 

I don't envy Trump or Hillary at this point because they are going to have a tough 4 years getting things back on track.   

The size of our govt was intended to be, was based off of what perceptions were 250 years ago.
The founding fathers would wet themselves simply looking at the size of our infrastructure. Washington would have lost his mind at the size of our military and foreign entanglements.

Jefferson wanted us to be a land of farms and plantations, with little govt.
However we are an experiment that grows to combat the problem as they arise, especially with a population of 250 million.
Does each congress person need a staff of 20?
Do we need the military we have?
 probably not.
but we have grown and there is no going back to Jefferson's idea of America!

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, Elmer said:

but we have grown and there is no going back to Jefferson's idea of America!

Of course not. There is no way we would survive as a land of farmers. That was a primary industry back then. They were pre-industrial revolution. 

We can go back to less federal intrusion and give states more power. 

[StevenR84]

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

We can go back to less federal intrusion and give states more power.

The problem is the states routinely demonstrate that they aren't capable of having the power they have.

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

The problem is the states routinely demonstrate that they aren't capable of having the power they have.

Examples?

[StevenR84]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Examples?

The current situation in North Carolina. Gay rights as a whole. The abortion case that Texas is pushing for.  The primary election procedure.

[sirhacksalot]

2 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

The current situation in North Carolina. Gay rights as a whole. The abortion case that Texas is pushing for.  The primary election procedure.

I would say that proven corruption and coercion in Louisiana, new york, georgia, illinois, florida, south carolina would also be good examples

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, StevenR84 said:

The current situation in North Carolina. Gay rights as a whole. The abortion case that Texas is pushing for.  The primary election procedure.

I agree that in most Civil Rights should be a national issue. 

As for primaries, each state gets to decide how the delegate votes are awarded. The primaries are run by a private entity. The GOP is a private entity. It is not government run organization. As such the US Government should not have any say on it. 

It's a balance between stuff that should be considered a national issue and others that should be left to the states to decide. For the most part history has shown that the federal government's best work has been on civil rights not entitlement programs. 

I believe a lot more could be done if the local governments were the primary driver of welfare programs. 

 

[newtogolf]

12 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

The current situation in North Carolina. Gay rights as a whole. The abortion case that Texas is pushing for.  The primary election procedure.

The Federal government shouldn't be involved in which state bathrooms people use, abortion or any other social based policy.  

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

The Federal government shouldn't be involved in which state bathrooms people use, abortion or any other social based policy.  

So you think states should have a right to bring back slavery, take away women's and minorities rights to vote? You know all those social issues that were solved by the federal government. 

[Lihu]

14 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

The Federal government shouldn't be involved in which state bathrooms people use, abortion or any other social based policy.  

The issue with bathrooms and anything related to individual rights is that we are one country, and if we have to figure out all the laws associated with individual states it could get really messy traveling to or through those states with unusual laws.

Individual rights should be at a national level.

I think Trump is more or less on these lines of thinking, but he's more concerned about national issues. So, I doubt he'll get too involved with these issues.