Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[San Antone]

You can write of "confusing some of his worst rhetoric with the overarching themes of his campaign," but he is the campaign, so his worst rhetoric is the campaign.  You've created a fantasy campaign by unrealistically sanitizing it of the toxin.  But, the nominee is the toxin.

You raise good points, and we disagree or agree to a varying extent on this or that point.  But El Tupé's candidacy was never about ideas or policy;  and how could it have been, when one minute he says one thing, and he may not even have reached the period of that sentence before he contradicts it.

Any of the real candidates might have made this a campaign of those policies and ideas; but then, you don't have much respect for any of the real candidates (and I am not saying you are wrong, there).

However, in the weeks just after his convention, and when he was not chopping off his legs with senseless personal attacks, he made five policy speechs which were largely about the issues I outlined.

His campaign did have a policy side - but it was grossly overshawdowed by his ugly rhetoric and past which the press took and ran with at the expense of anything else.  I might add, the press's obession with Trump's rhetoric and past also allowed Clinton to spend her the last 18 months campaigning without really specifiying what she would do as president other than offering up a collection of slogans and platitudes.

[Parsifal]

Well, I would agree with you if I did not think you and those you cite entirely misunderstand what the Trump candidacy represents.  You are confusing some of his worst rhetoric with the overarching themes of his campaign, which were:

* Securing the border by enforcing existing laws and building some kind of border barrier and dealing justly with immigrants both legal and illegal (which does not mean rewarding those who jumped the line).

* Lowering business taxes and removing regulatory obstacles which would allow US companies to become more profitable which translates into more and better jobs.

* Addressing defects in exisiting trade deals by exercising withdrawal clauses if necessary and re-negotiating them, which also will grow jobs.

* Appeal to a broad swath of voters on issues concerning individual liberties, as well as, how the political system deals ineffectively with problems stemming from racial inequality (starting with bringing jobs to  inner cities), expensive education (establishing alternatives to the 4-year college degree), social issues (stop trying to enforce some idea of morality through government), health care (not just insurance, but the actual delivery of care).

And a whole host of other issues which have been swept under the carpet for years by the political class in Washington who are happy to raise funds and get reelected without ever doing any thing really for the good of the country.

You previously admitted you did not know that Trump has run for President before. If you had been aware of his existence for longer than the last six months you might have a different view of him. I lived in New York City metropolitan area and have been watching his doings since the 1980's. He is a con artist, pure and simple. He has espoused every political view and its opposite depending on what he thinks will be to his personal advantage at the moment. The only constants are his narcissism and amorality.

[San Antone]

You previously admitted you did not know that Trump has run for President before. If you had been aware of his existence for longer than the last six months you might have a different view of him. I lived in New York City metropolitan area and have been watching his doings since the 1980's. He is a con artist, pure and simple. He has espoused every political view and its opposite depending on what he thinks will be to his personal advantage at the moment. The only constants are his narcissism and amorality.

You act as if that is any different from other politicians.

[Parsifal]

You act as if that is any different from other politicians.

Telling that this is the best defense you can mount for Trump.

President Obama has done or tried to do everything he said he would. The stimulus saved the country from an even deeper economic crisis. The health care bill is basically what was promised during the debates I listened to at the time. Of course it is not true that absolutely everyone could keep their existing health care plan, but that was not by design. Even before Obamacare was passed it was not uncommon for health care insurance offered by private employers to change, be canceled, or become more expensive. I consider it an overall success, despite the efforts of Congress and Republican Governers to hobble it. He didn't close Guantanamo, but no new prisoners were put in, many were removed, and Congress put up barriers to ultimately closing it. His foreign policy has protected the U.S. from large scale terror attacks, led to the elimination of bin Laden, and kept U.S. forces out of mass military intervention. I find Obama to be a man of integrity, even if there were areas where he was not successful. I expect history will judge him favorably.

[San Antone]

Telling that this is the best defense you can mount for Trump.

President Obama has done or tried to do everything he said he would. The stimulus saved the country from an even deeper economic crisis. The health care bill is basically what was promised during the debates I listened to at the time. Of course it is not true that absolutely everyone could keep their existing health care plan, but that was not by design. Even before Obamacare was passed it was not uncommon for health care insurance offered by private employers to change, be canceled, or become more expensive. I consider it an overall success, despite the efforts of Congress and Republican Governers to hobble it. He didn't close Guantanamo, but no new prisoners were put in, many were removed, and Congress put up barriers to ultimately closing it. His foreign policy has protected the U.S. from large scale terror attacks, led to the elimination of bin Laden, and kept U.S. forces out of mass military intervention. I find Obama to be a man of integrity, even if there were areas where he was not successful. I expect history will judge him favorably.

I get tired repeating everything I've  offered as a "defense" of Trump.  You can find plenty I've posted previsouly in this thread.

Obama promised plenty about Obamacare which mostly turned out to be a rosy scenario, to put it kindly.  You can blame its failures on Replublican opposition - but the manner in which it was passed is one of his faliures and he is being held accountable for pushing it through before he had convinced the opposition of the law's efficacy.

[drogulus]

    Hillary crowns herself Unholy Roman Empress

    Gulag will be established in Kansas for GOP "malignants"

     McConnell castigates policy as "unnecessarily partisan"

     

[Karl Henning]

    Hillary crowns herself Unholy Roman Empress

    Gulag will be established in Kansas for GOP "malignants"

     McConnell castigates policy as "unnecessarily partisan"

     

snypsss, stop hacking Ernie's account!

[Pat B]

However, in the weeks just after his convention, and when he was not chopping off his legs with senseless personal attacks, he made five policy speechs which were largely about the issues I outlined.

His campaign did have a policy side - but it was grossly overshawdowed by his ugly rhetoric and past which the press took and ran with at the expense of anything else.  I might add, the press's obession with Trump's rhetoric and past also allowed Clinton to spend her the last 18 months campaigning without really specifiying what she would do as president other than offering up a collection of slogans and platitudes.

I certainly agree that Clinton is a flawed candidate.

Any candidate who says "grab them by the pussy" must expect the press to have a field day with it. The fixation on that sentence, if anything, underplays the awfulness of the total conversation.

Trump is easily the least disciplined candidate I have ever seen. That is not the press's fault. Earlier you quoted someone complaining about the Rs' tendency to "just feed them abortion and guns," but that sounds a lot like Trump's performance in the 3rd debate.

[Pat B]

You act as if that is any different from other politicians.

I thought the whole point of Trump was that he allegedly isn't a politician.

[Karl Henning]

Just gonna put this out here.

[San Antone]

I certainly agree that Clinton is a flawed candidate.

Any candidate who says "grab them by the pussy" must expect the press to have a field day with it. The fixation on that sentence, if anything, underplays the awfulness of the total conversation.

You're right Trump has been his own worst enemy.  And he gave the press plenty of ammunition to cover those stories which was their job to do.  But that still does not excuse them from also covering Clinton in a manner that would force her to spell out specifics about her policies and ask tough follow-up questions and challenge her superficial explanations of servergate and foundation stories.

In my opinion this has been the worst covered presidential race in my lifetime. 

[Parsifal]

I get tired repeating everything I've  offered as a "defense" of Trump.  You can find plenty I've posted previsouly in this thread.

Obama promised plenty about Obamacare which mostly turned out to be a rosy scenario, to put it kindly.  You can blame its failures on Replublican opposition - but the manner in which it was passed is one of his faliures and he is being held accountable for pushing it through before he had convinced the opposition of the law's efficacy.

I had a friend who had a PhD in physics and worked as a junior researcher at a major U.S. university in a Biophysics institute. He got an National Institutes of Health fellowship, which meant he was off the university payroll and essentially self-employed. He was denied health insurance because his wife was pregnant at the time and that was considered a disqualifying pre-existing condition by the health insurer. The irony of a National Institutes of Health researcher being denied health insurance notwithstanding, that was perfectly allowable under the previous regime of health insurance. The university had mercy on him and allowed him to enroll in their student health insurance plan, which was grossly inadequate, but at least it was something. Under Obamacare he would have had no problem, and at the very least he would have been able to select insurance from the state exchange and maybe gotten a subsidy. Obamacare may not be perfect (partly because any fixes to it are unthinkable in the context of a Congress which has monthly votes to repeal it) and it may have caused difficulties for some people, put it has helped a huge number of people.

[Karl Henning]

Why haven't Clinton WikiLeaks emails caused more uproar?

People seem to be seeing what they want to see in the latest batch of emails, making the net effect of their release relatively minor.

[Brian]

Telling that this is the best defense you can mount for Trump.

President Obama has done or tried to do everything he said he would. The stimulus saved the country from an even deeper economic crisis. The health care bill is basically what was promised during the debates I listened to at the time. Of course it is not true that absolutely everyone could keep their existing health care plan, but that was not by design. Even before Obamacare was passed it was not uncommon for health care insurance offered by private employers to change, be canceled, or become more expensive. I consider it an overall success, despite the efforts of Congress and Republican Governers to hobble it. He didn't close Guantanamo, but no new prisoners were put in, many were removed, and Congress put up barriers to ultimately closing it. His foreign policy has protected the U.S. from large scale terror attacks, led to the elimination of bin Laden, and kept U.S. forces out of mass military intervention. I find Obama to be a man of integrity, even if there were areas where he was not successful. I expect history will judge him favorably.

I feel similarly - regardless of Obama's shortcomings and failures, he is a man of integrity, a basically good, moral person, and someone who clearly always acted in what he considered to be the best interests of the country. He is, on the whole, honest and earnest in a way that most people presume politicians cannot be. We need more Obamas, and it's sad to me that so many people cannot even see (or acknowledge) this about him.

[Mahlerian]

I feel similarly - regardless of Obama's shortcomings and failures, he is a man of integrity, a basically good, moral person, and someone who clearly always acted in what he considered to be the best interests of the country. He is, on the whole, honest and earnest in a way that most people presume politicians cannot be. We need more Obamas, and it's sad to me that so many people cannot even see (or acknowledge) this about him.

His popularity remains relatively high, especially in terms of perceived likability, even though he failed to accomplish his stated goal of bipartisan action (well, it takes two sides to do that, you know).  Republicans' insistence that Obama's presidency was a huge failure makes them look foolish.

I think that in large part his administration will be judged, rightly or wrongly, on the basis of how the situation with ISIS eventually turns out.

[Karl Henning]

Well, I would agree with you if I did not think you and those you cite entirely misunderstand what the Trump candidacy represents.  You are confusing some of his worst rhetoric with the overarching themes of his campaign, which were:

* Securing the border by enforcing existing laws and building some kind of border barrier and dealing justly with immigrants both legal and illegal (which does not mean rewarding those who jumped the line).

This is actually a passing thought in a piece whose theme is the lesson which the GOP oughta be taught:

. . . if there is any place that should be anxious about illegal immigration, it is Texas. Come to think of it, Arizona is another border state. And yet Trump is struggling in both places. Trump's build-the-wall and mass deportation proposals don't sell in Arizona and Texas.

[drogulus]

     WickiLeaks about campaign insider stuff could hardy be expected to move voters.

     Podesta: HRC really shouldn't have killed Vince Foster. People will think she's such a nasty woman. Don't we have to respond?

     Not Podesta: I don't know, it's a close call, don't you think? It doesn't show up in the focus groups. Maybe we just ignore it.

     Yes, that's what I think. "Vince who?"

     

[Brian]

I think that in large part his administration will be judged, rightly or wrongly, on the basis of how the situation with ISIS eventually turns out.

There are a lot of long-term gambles affecting Obama's legacy - not just ISIS, but the Iran nuclear deal, the constitutionality of his climate change policies, whether or not his successor(s) can create a public health care option with bargaining power...

[Madiel]

I thought the whole point of Trump was that he allegedly isn't a politician.

Indeed, on the last page we were told that his appeal was based on being different. But when he's criticised, the defence is that we should expect him to be just as bad as other politicians.

Might as well stick with those that know and understand the political system, then.

[Madiel]

...which would allow US companies to become more profitable which translates into more and better jobs.

I am amazed that anyone continues to believe in this correlation.

Seriously, why on earth do you think that profits lead to jobs? Profits aren't for making jobs. Sure, from time to time a company will use profits to expand in a way that creates more jobs, but the notion that there's a direct correlation between these two things has been one of the biggest lies sold by the big end of town, and you're apparently still buying even though the destruction of jobs in small town America has been largely driven by the big end of town figuring out that bigger profits can be created by having fewer jobs. Or moving jobs to countries where labor is cheaper.

There is a cartoon that illustrates neatly what happens. Trickle-down economics is based on the idea of a champagne tower where filling the top glass leads to overflow into the glasses lower down. But the analogy doesn't work because what happens instead is that the top glass grows. Okay? The people running a large company, and the SHAREHOLDERS (the ones that profits are made for) don't think "great, we got more money, let's spread it around to employees". They think "great, we got more money!".

And then they think "how can we make even more money?", and if the answer involves employing more people, that's incidental. It's not the goal. Employing more people means greater costs, and their whole goal is to minimise costs relative to profit. A company only spends more money on more employees if they figure out they'll still be getting more out of the deal than the new employees will be.

It's only service industries that are stuck with having to employ more people in the US in order to expand, because they need people on the ground where the customers are. Note, this applies to things like restaurants. Not to all the companies where "customer service" consists of having someone at the other end of a phone line or sitting behind a website. Those kinds of service centres can be, and frequently are, anywhere.

So the only jobs you can guarantee are created are the crappy jobs where people are paid to wait on customers in some way. And the goal is still to create as few of these jobs as possible, because the goal is to make the service as cheap as possible.

Companies aren't civic-minded co-operative societies designed to create a happy, smiling community of participants. They're sociopaths designed to make as much money as possible while expending as little as possible. The entity you're looking for - the one that's purpose is supposed to be your welfare rather than its own - is called "government". And you're asking it to give away some of its money to the sociopaths by cutting taxes.