Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[kishnevi]

Then one wonders what government is actually for. Some people are very keen to tell you what the government ought not to be doing, but they're not usually very good at identifying what the role of government is supposed to be.

Plus we need to distinguish the Legislature from the Executive, of course.

I have noticed from time to time that there at least some Americans who seem to believe that people without wealth shouldn't be helped by government, but by churches and charities. These are not necessarily the people who actually give anything to churches and charities that would enable them to help the poor. But it's an interesting mindset.

Exactly. Government should be not doing many things.
The classic libertarian formulation is that government should guarantee inherent rights and nothing more.  In practice that means defend against exterior aggression ( invasion), interior agression (crime), and maintenance of a stable structure where citizens can resolve disputes (courts) and transact business (the rule of law).  Post office and highways are grudging admissions of reality.

Beyond that, government by this view is not needed and ultimately counterproductive.

I should note conservatives here like to tout statistics showing they give more in charity, in proportion and frequency, than progressives, but I have never checked the accuracy of such statistics.

Conservative cognitive dissonance comes into play in two ways that may not be readily apparent.

First, after denouncing federal tyranny, they are apt to happily accept even worse intrusions at the state level by claiming the federal government is limited to delegated powers but the states are not.

Second, while happily claiming the Bill of Rights lists rights inherent in all humans, and that this list is not exhaustive, they are outraged when people try to extend those rights to non citizens and foreigners, and outraged when the courts formulate a right not actually mentioned in the BoR.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Subsidiary to that, the people who want a smaller Federal government would tell you that the government, at any level or size, had no business redistributing wealth.

Any system of taxation is inevitably a system of redistributing wealth, and under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Therefore the legislative branch of the federal government most certainly does have the business of redistributing wealth and doing so is one of its primary responsibilities. Generally those who object to redistributing wealth have no objection to such redistribution when it works in their favor, such as the mortgage interest deduction for many homeowners or a net operating loss of $900,000,000+ that effectively exempts one from paying any federal taxes at all. They only object when redistribution works in someone else's favor.

[Madiel]

The classic libertarian formulation is that government should guarantee inherent rights and nothing more.  In practice that means defend against exterior aggression ( invasion), interior agression (crime), and maintenance of a stable structure where citizens can resolve disputes (courts) and transact business (the rule of law).  Post office and highways are grudging admissions of reality.

Beyond that, government by this view is not needed and ultimately counterproductive.

This is of course a very nice conception of government from the point of view of anyone who is already in a position of advantage, and who can get what they want through the exercise of power and influence without resort to "crime".

It's a world view where everything is just fine and therefore the government doesn't need to intervene except to ensure that things stay as they are.

[kishnevi]

Any system of taxation is inevitably a system of redistributing wealth, and under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Therefore the legislative branch of the federal government most certainly does have the business of redistributing wealth and doing so is one of its primary responsibilities. Generally those who object to redistributing wealth have no objection to such redistribution when it works in their favor, such as the mortgage interest deduction for many homeowners or a net operating loss of $900,000,000+ that effectively exempts one from paying any federal taxes at all. They only object when redistribution works in someone else's favor.

Redistribution of wealth means taking from those that have and giving it to those who do not, based on political considerations. Not because of any moral worth.

The mortgage deduction is a good example. It survives because the real estate vendors and mortgage brokers need it, not because of any social utility.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Redistribution of wealth means taking from those that have and giving it to those who do not, based on political considerations. Not because of any moral worth.

The mortgage deduction is a good example. It survives because the real estate vendors and mortgage brokers need it, not because of any social utility.

Redistribution can work either up or down. And I said nothing about moral or social implications. Ronald Reagan did, however, in signing the Tax Reform Act of 1986:

"Flatter rates will mean more reward for that extra effort, and vanishing loopholes and a minimum tax will mean that everybody and every corporation pay their fair share. And that's why I'm certain that the bill I'm signing today is not only an historic overhaul of our tax code and a sweeping victory for fairness, it's also the best anti-poverty bill, the best pro-family measure, and the best job-creation program ever to come out of the Congress of the United States."

[zamyrabyrd]

Takes a genius to book a $1 billion loss though

Not if the objective was to save on income tax for the next 18 years.

[zamyrabyrd]

The Don sure knows how to treat a lady! Thoroughly discredited at this point, he ought to do at least one noble deed and resign the race. Pence could prob. give Hillary a run for her money, though I certainly hope not...

Pardon my French but a sewer mouth is worse in a woman:
http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

"Good morning, ma'am," a member of the uniformed Secret Service once greeted Hillary Clinton.

"F— off," she replied.

That exchange is one among many that active and retired Secret Service agents shared with Ronald Kessler, author of "First Family Detail," a compelling look at the intrepid personnel who shield America's presidents and their families — and those whom they guard.

Kessler writes flatteringly and critically about people in both parties. Regarding the Clintons, Kessler presents Chelsea as a model protectee who respected and appreciated her agents. He describes Bill as a difficult chief executive but an easygoing ex-president. And Kessler exposes Hillary as an epically abusive Arctic monster.

"When in public, Hillary smiles and acts graciously," Kessler explains. "As soon as the cameras are gone, her angry personality, nastiness, and imperiousness become evident."

He adds: "Hillary Clinton can make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi."

Kessler was an investigative reporter with the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post and has penned 19 other books. Among much more in "First Family Detail," he reports:

 "Hillary was very rude to agents, and she didn't appear to like law enforcement or the military," former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman recalls. "She wouldn't go over and meet military people or police officers, as most protectees do. She was just really rude to almost everybody. She'd act like she didn't want you around, like you were beneath her."

While running for US Senate, Hillary stopped at an upstate New York 4-H Club. As one Secret Service agent says, Hillary saw farmers and cows and then erupted. "She turned to a staffer and said, 'What the f - - - did we come here for? There's no money here.' "
Secret Service "agents consider being assigned to her detail a form of punishment," Kessler concludes. "In fact, agents say being on Hillary Clinton's detail is the worst duty assignment in the Secret Service."

After studying the Secret Service and its relationships with dozens of presidents, vice presidents and their families, Ronald Kessler's astonishment at Hillary Clinton's inhumanity should reverberate in every American's head.

As he told me: "No one would hire such a person to work at a McDonald's, and yet she is being considered for president of the United States."

[Pat B]

A "candidate like Trump" as in someone who would represent a change from the business-as-usual party regulars. 

Trump's problem has been his complete disregard for common sense messaging.   His need to respond to every perceived slight is tedious and beneith the diginity of the office for which he is campaigning.  Basically, his ideas about trade, taxes, immigration and security are being buried by his adolescent and irratic tirades. Hence his inability to remain competitve against Hillary Clinton despite her enormous negatives.

The phrase "political elites" is shorthand for the corporate donars and their lobbyists, big-name journalists and opinion swayers, and the leadership of elected officials and other Beltway insiders.  They all go to the same cocktail parties and are so threatened by what Trump represents, his opposition transcends partisanship and aligns all insiders against the rabble rouser who is storming the gates to the palace.  It exposes how little really separates Democrats and Republicans who all suck at the same corporate teat and have the most to lose by a Trump victory.

You seem to be envisioning a hypothetical candidate with Trump's outsider appeal but without Trump's various flaws. That could be a powerful candidate indeed. Time will tell whether such a candidate exists, and what other flaws he or she has.

But don't get your hopes up too high. Outsider candidates, when elected, tend to quickly become insider politicians.

Meanwhile, many of your "political elites" on the R side -- like Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, Jeff Sessions, Chris Christie, Paul LePage, Peter Thiel, T. Boone Pickens, Jerry Falwell Jr., Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity -- are in fact supporting Trump. Those who are half-hearted about it -- like Ted Cruz, Reince Priebus, Sheldon Adelson, John McCain, Paul Ryan -- have obvious, non-conspiratorial reasons for that. And the handful of major R politicians who have actually endorsed Clinton -- like John Warner and Richard Hanna -- are either out of office or leaving office, which gives them more leeway to openly speak their mind.

[Pat B]

Three main factors are in play
1. Blacks have come to realize that just because one of their own is President does not mean there is any substantial improvement in their daily lives.
2. Obama reinforces many attitudes in the black community about institutional racism instead of criticizing the ones that are not fully based in reality: meaning above all he should be, but is not,  pointing to the fact that many problems arise from poverty and not racism, and that the black community seems unable to rid itself of widespread antisocial behaviour (most notably the rate of black on black homicide).
3. A political strategy by the American left, to label as racist and therefore not worthy of consideration, any opposition to Obama, even though that opposition is to the policies of the most leftward leaning President since FDR, and would occur even if Obama was a blue eyed blonde haired pureblood WASP.

Do you have a link for the bolded claim?

I do agree that many on the left are way too quick to play the race card on non-racial issues. It's lazy, even when I agree on the underlying issue.

The increase in body cameras and the ubiquity of camera phones is surely a factor too.

[Spineur]

I think this may be  whatJeff was aluding to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html

I dont think americans can elect a guy who would turn the white house into a "giant lupanar".

This and the tax scandal should put an end to your miseries.

[zamyrabyrd]

I dont think americans can elect a guy who would turn the white house into a "giant lupanar".

Oh right, what would Monica Lewinsky say about that? Marilyn Monroe?
Nixon never cussed? Johnson? Hillary Clinton?
Cast the first stone people!

[Turner]

Oh right, what would Monica Lewinsky say about that? Marilyn Monroe?
Nixon never cussed? Johnson? Hillary Clinton?
Cast the first stone people!

You seem to be pretty much legitimizing it then, by the means of whataboutism.
Didn´t hear anything about HRC in that respect, merely a public insinuation from a certain "hero".

[zamyrabyrd]

You seem to be pretty much legitimizing it then, by the means of whataboutism.
Didn´t hear anything about HRC in that respect, merely a public insinuation from a certain "hero".

Not legitimatizing but acknowledging that it is wrong and taking attention away from much more important issues, just like he said.
Glass house Hillary may live to regret bringing up Alicia Machado, und so weiter.

[Turner]

Not legitimatizing but acknowledging that it is wrong and taking attention away from much more important issues, just like he said.

You´re right, such as the general amount of deeds, experience and qualifications found in the man.

[Herman]

Three main factors are in play

3. A political strategy by the American left, to label as racist and therefore not worthy of consideration, any opposition to Obama, even though that opposition is to the policies of the most leftward leaning President since FDR, and would occur even if Obama was a blue eyed blonde haired pureblood WASP.

I'll skip the first two which come down to ol' reliables like "Blacks are killing each other if white people don't police them'. Thanks for the giggle though.

As to Obama being the most left-leaning president since FDR, Obama is in reality, if you look at his policies rather than his skin color, a moderate.

His most "lefty" item, the Affordable Care Act was largely cribbed from earlier GOP proposals.

The problem is conservative America has moved so far to the right that the center has now become the Far Left. But it isn't.

[The new erato]

Not legitimatizing but acknowledging that it is wrong and taking attention away from much more important issues, just like he said.
Glass house Hillary may live to regret bringing up Alicia Machado, und so weiter.

The GOP would have done better to elect a candidate bringing focus on those issues, then.

[zamyrabyrd]

The GOP would have done better to elect a candidate bringing focus on those issues, then.

OK, I agree and would even support them. However, RINO's, or Republicans in Name Only, frequently are indistinguishable in policy from their Democrat counterparts.

[Herman]

OK, I agree and would even support them. However, RINO's, or Republicans in Name Only, frequently are indistinguishable in policy from their Democrat counterparts.

You mean they're not openly misogynistic and racist? Not worth your vote!

[zamyrabyrd]

You mean they're not openly misogynistic and racist? Not worth your vote!

They could be covertly misogynist (even worse) and as the Ole Girl proposes, everyone allegedly has a touch of racism.

[Herman]

They could be covertly misogynist (even worse) and as the Ole Girl proposes, everyone allegedly has a touch of racism.

actually her words were "implicit bias" which is not the same.