2016 US Presidential Election
- Thread starter Oilgarchy
- Start date
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/Them
Except for the parts that make it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.Kannex:
Rand learnt well from his pa about weasling around just enough so that most people won't realise what he actually is (and in Ron's case that's a racist, sexist homophobe).
No it's not. Congress, is never hung. Congress has only two parties, so it must, by definition always have a majority of one party or another. Gridlock between Senate and House is quite rare.Syrixia:
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Face it, Trump is probably going to be the next President. This is almost a foregone conclusion based upon four things that get anyone elected to office:
1.) Name recognition (most Americans are 'low information voters' and will vote for whatever candidate has the most known name.
2.) Whoever spends the most money, wins, 99.99% of the time.
3.) He is unlike anyone in the campaign - he is not a politician. He says exactly what he means and doesn't care what anyone thinks (but apparently that gets him points in terms of people who would vote for him), and most people like that in a candidate.
4.) People may be stupid, but they aren't so stupid that they cannot see that Obama's and the political left's attempts at Socialism and Political Correctness have resulted in an utter train wreck if there was ever was one.
1.) Name recognition (most Americans are 'low information voters' and will vote for whatever candidate has the most known name.
2.) Whoever spends the most money, wins, 99.99% of the time.
3.) He is unlike anyone in the campaign - he is not a politician. He says exactly what he means and doesn't care what anyone thinks (but apparently that gets him points in terms of people who would vote for him), and most people like that in a candidate.
4.) People may be stupid, but they aren't so stupid that they cannot see that Obama's and the political left's attempts at Socialism and Political Correctness have resulted in an utter train wreck if there was ever was one.
Like Hillary Clinton? I'm quite sure Hillary will get the 'low information vote.' Also the low information crowd doesn't vote in primaries.Romanoffia:
Really? There are many Obama fans still in existence. They exist.Romanoffia:
falapatorius
TNPer
If that happens (which it won't), it would make the US an international laughingstock (maybe more so, arguably).Romanoffia:
The only group Trump should scare is the American people. The most troubling aspect of his ridiculous campaign is that 20% of the Republican base actually agrees with his insane policies. At this point, the Democrats could nominate an inanimate carbon rod (possibly more interesting than Clinton or Sanders), and still win the presidency.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
falapatorius:
Nothing further to add... but GOoooooooooooooooo Hildog
Democratic Donkeys
TNPer
#feelthebern
New Aquilia
TNPer
no...but major gridlocks do occur when one body is controlled by one party and the other body is controlled by the other.
The two party system in the states is the most inefficient form of party governance in the world due to such occurrences, but only in the states do you have the third party platform so marginalized that a possible Trump third party run, could seal the fate for the Democrats for the next presidency.
The two party system in the states is the most inefficient form of party governance in the world due to such occurrences, but only in the states do you have the third party platform so marginalized that a possible Trump third party run, could seal the fate for the Democrats for the next presidency.
New Aquilia
TNPer
Ok....come back from delusion land.Romanoffia:
1) Low information does not mean name recognition works. Trump's known as basically a reality show buffoon or a guy with money that has a predilection to younger women, whose marries with said women usually end in disaster.
2) No, it's whoever spends the most money, has the most support and gets their party's nomination that wins.
3) And that makes him unqualified to lead, even the most two-faced politicians learn to listen to people. Trump doesn't...he's used to getting his own way or creating it. That's not a quality you want in a leader of the largest military structure in the world.
4) Yeah...only a correction from the right-wing and near sheer disaster with the Bush presidency, a workable but still flawed healthcare system as opposed to one that created high number of bankruptcies due to health bills and other things. Oh yeah, "socialism" (news flash Obama isn't a socialist) really failed there.
falapatorius
TNPer
@McM and DD: It's Hillary's election to lose imo. But I like Bernie's intelligence though. Maybe they'll wise up and see the efficacy of teaming up. 
If Trump were to cut and run (doubtful) and run as an Independent, he would split the Republican vote more than anything. Jeez, I'm reminded of Ross Perot.New Aquilia:
Democratic Donkeys
TNPer
You don't know Roman, do you? That'd be a discussion for closer to the convention.
falapatorius
TNPer
Yeah, but...
Democratic Donkeys
TNPer
As long as Bernie is the President, Hillary could be Vice I guess. 
New Aquilia
TNPer
Nebula:
WIN!
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Democratic Donkeys:As long as Bernie is the President, Hillary could be Vice I guess.
Omg no
falapatorius:
I think it's an interesting notion. I've also been reading plenty of articles about Biden, who I also like. Another option could be Clinton/Biden. The eternal VP.
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/Them
The problem for the GOP is that the field is far too large, even with them limiting debates. Look at these polls and how many times Trump finishes in the top 2 among GOP candidates. The further along we go and the more GOP guys who drop out and it'll help the front runners of Bush, Walker and Paul (the only guys who come within 5 points of Clinton. Bush is the only one who beats Hilary - and that's just in one poll. In other polls Hilary beats Bush handily).
Nightsong
Bookworm
You have two problems at the moment... Hillary's campaign is sinking under all the scrutiny over her actions as Secretary of State (among other things) and the Republicans are stuck in la la land from a hundred years ago. I might not agree with Sanders and some of his policies (when are you ever going to agree with a politician one hundred percent?) but he is (to me) the only sane person running. And his strategy of campaigning and speaking in red states and reaching out to voters of the opposite party could pay off greatly once elections start going.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
plembobria:
Sure they exist, and so do Mussolini and Stalin fans.
falapatorius:
Not really. $5 says Hillary doesn't get the Dem nomination. In fact, she may get prosecuted over her Email server (the FBI is conducting a genuine criminal investigation at this time).
Look for Joe Biden to get the Dem Nomination.
All in all, another $5 says the Dems will loose big in 2016. People have had enough Hopelessnes and Chains. Take my word for it. You will see.
mcmasterdonia:falapatorius:
Nothing further to add... but GOoooooooooooooooo Hildog
You mean the US isn't already the laughing stock of the world? The only way it could get worse is if the Iranians ignore the nuke deal and bomb us in six months (which will probably be the case).
But if you actually take the time to read what he has written in books concerning foreign and domestic policies, you may find that they are actually very sane.
Now, that said, nothing could be more insane and inane than Obama's policies of selectively enforcing the laws he likes and ignoring the laws he doesn't, dealing with black robed crazy clerics who chant "Death to America!", wrecking what's left of the economy, forcing socialist/marxist BS which is causing businesses to either go belly up or leave the county, and. not to mention the fact that Obama really sucks at golf. You know what Obama's handicap is? He hasn't a clue about anything.
At any rate, some of you have apparently mistaken my assessments as support for Trump. Trump may be a baffoon, but I doubt that any baffoon could make as much money as he does. He know's what he's doing. Rest assured of that when he makes mincemeat of his opposition.
New Aquilia:
Again, you are making the erroneous assumption that I support Trump.
And you say Socialist like that's a bad thing.
As for Obama being a Socialist, perhaps that is not exactly correct. A Marxist, Communist or Fascist would be more accurate. That 'share the wealth' comment he made sort of clinches Communists or Marxist for most people.
Nebula
TNPer
Marxism is essentially anarchy.Romanoffia:As for Obama being a Socialist, perhaps that is not exactly correct. A Marxist, Communist or Fascist would be more accurate. That 'share the wealth' comment he made sort of clinches Communists or Marxist for most people.
Communism involves people living in communes. Do you see any government-created communes? I don't.
Fascism is pretty much the opposite of Marxism, so I don't understand what you're getting at. Your statement makes me feel that you don't understand the terms.
Kannex
TNPer
That's not right. Communism is the aspiration to create a classless communist society based on the "common ownership of production." Marxism is a subset and argues that communism is inevitable based on class struggle causing society to evolve from capitalism to socialism. It's obviously not anarchistic, looking at all the Marxist branches that have wrecked so much damage in the world.Nebula:Marxism is essentially anarchy.Romanoffia:As for Obama being a Socialist, perhaps that is not exactly correct. A Marxist, Communist or Fascist would be more accurate. That 'share the wealth' comment he made sort of clinches Communists or Marxist for most people.
Communism involves people living in communes. Do you see any government-created communes? I don't.
Fascism is pretty much the opposite of Marxism, so I don't understand what you're getting at. Your statement makes me feel that you don't understand the terms.
Fascism is theoretically the opposite of Marxism in that fascism rejects class conflict, but the tenets are similar. Corporations -- groups that represent special interests, or different social classes, similar to communes -- have a say in government. Both workers and employers theoretically have representation in fascism. But what most strands of communism and fascism have in common is this: a strong, central leadership to enact social change, that ends up being a dictatorship.
Nebula
TNPer
Well, why don't I call up my friends in TCB and you can debate with them?Kannex:That's not right. Communism is the aspiration to create a classless communist society based on the "common ownership of production." Marxism is a subset and argues that communism is inevitable based on class struggle causing society to evolve from capitalism to socialism. It's obviously not anarchistic, looking at all the Marxist branches that have wrecked so much damage in the world.Nebula:Marxism is essentially anarchy.Romanoffia:As for Obama being a Socialist, perhaps that is not exactly correct. A Marxist, Communist or Fascist would be more accurate. That 'share the wealth' comment he made sort of clinches Communists or Marxist for most people.
Communism involves people living in communes. Do you see any government-created communes? I don't.
Fascism is pretty much the opposite of Marxism, so I don't understand what you're getting at. Your statement makes me feel that you don't understand the terms.
Fascism is theoretically the opposite of Marxism in that fascism rejects class conflict, but the tenets are similar. Corporations -- groups that represent special interests, or different social classes, similar to communes -- have a say in government. Both workers and employers theoretically have representation in fascism. But what most strands of communism and fascism have in common is this: a strong, central leadership to enact social change, that ends up being a dictatorship.
My point is that Obama is not any of those things.
Kannex
TNPer
These are literally analytic judgements.Nebula:Well, why don't I call up my friends in TCB and you can debate with them?Kannex:That's not right. Communism is the aspiration to create a classless communist society based on the "common ownership of production." Marxism is a subset and argues that communism is inevitable based on class struggle causing society to evolve from capitalism to socialism. It's obviously not anarchistic, looking at all the Marxist branches that have wrecked so much damage in the world.Nebula:Marxism is essentially anarchy.Romanoffia:As for Obama being a Socialist, perhaps that is not exactly correct. A Marxist, Communist or Fascist would be more accurate. That 'share the wealth' comment he made sort of clinches Communists or Marxist for most people.
Communism involves people living in communes. Do you see any government-created communes? I don't.
Fascism is pretty much the opposite of Marxism, so I don't understand what you're getting at. Your statement makes me feel that you don't understand the terms.
Fascism is theoretically the opposite of Marxism in that fascism rejects class conflict, but the tenets are similar. Corporations -- groups that represent special interests, or different social classes, similar to communes -- have a say in government. Both workers and employers theoretically have representation in fascism. But what most strands of communism and fascism have in common is this: a strong, central leadership to enact social change, that ends up being a dictatorship.
My point is that Obama is not any of those things.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Obama is a great President and he will be remembered for a great many things (he does seem a bit legacy obsessed like Thatcher or Reagan). I also think though that he has fallen down in some areas, like gun control, largely due to the hostile congress which hopefully won't be a problem for Future President Hillary Clinton.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Actually, Fascism is a direct outgrowth and a form of Socialism based upon Marxism. Read Mussolini's "Fascist Manifesto" and Goebbels' various tracts on National Socialism - they clearly state and detail that these varieties of Socialism are indeed "Socialism" and are based upon Marxism.Nebula:Marxism is essentially anarchy.Romanoffia:As for Obama being a Socialist, perhaps that is not exactly correct. A Marxist, Communist or Fascist would be more accurate. That 'share the wealth' comment he made sort of clinches Communists or Marxist for most people.
Communism involves people living in communes. Do you see any government-created communes? I don't.
Fascism is pretty much the opposite of Marxism, so I don't understand what you're getting at. Your statement makes me feel that you don't understand the terms.
The only difference between Fascism when it comes to Socialist regimes is that it differs in two specific aspects with "Communism" and "Socialism".
The first difference is that Socialism/Communism generally views that "Socialism" is just a stage on the way to true Communism's "Workers' Paradise".
The second difference is in the concept of private property:
In Communism/Marxism, everything and everyone is property of the state and there is no private property and the means of production belongs to the workers (and, the workers are property of the state by definition), and eventually the "State" whithers away (this is a somewhat simplified and brief description, though). It is also intended to be applied as an internationalistic system.
In National Socialism and Fascism (two distinct systems, the former being German and Dutch, and the latter being Italian and Spanish), private property exists, but it is regulated in such a way that the Government can use it at their disposal.
In Mussolini's system, there is a marriage between industry and government, but the government has absolute control over the industries, but seeks to promote the insterests of industry as long as it serves the purposes of the state when it is needed to do so (Command Economy like Soviet style Communism, but with private property ownership. Personal profit incentive is approved of, as long as it serves the state. Social engineering is part of the system, but it is based upon improving economic conditions and support of the state and tends to have no desire to impose racial or ethnic cleansing, etc.
Hitler's system is the same as Mussolini's but has elements of racial purity and service to the state.
Communism/Socialism/Fascism are Statist systems that are expansionist because they eat up their own resources and must expand in order to survive, and generally survive only because they feed at the table of Capitalist nations/systems. They always end up as totalitarian systems when attempted on large scale applications. Therefore, these systems are at the opposite end of the spectrum from "anarchy" as economic and political systems. The state has a monopoly on everything including violence to obtain it's end.
There's an old joke that rings true that Communism is the ultimate brutal form of capitalism as illustrated in the old Soviet era Russian joke:
In Capitalism, one man exploits another for his personal gain. In Capitalism, it is just the other way around.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Obama will be remembered as the President who destroyed America and whose policies promoted the expansion of Islamic Extremist Terrorism.mcmasterdonia:
To illustrate this fact, Obama has stopped the construction of Nuclear Power Plants in the US and is killing the oil industry while, at the same time, is promoting the construction of Nuclear Power Plants and the oil industry in countries that constantly chant "Death To America" like Iran.
Obama will go down in history as the 21st Century's Neville Chamberlain.
By the time he's done, don't be surprised if Australia isn't a Chinese province in 20 years. Seriously.
falapatorius
TNPer
Nope. That would be George W. Bush (along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice et al). Obama just inherited that mess. He's done a decent job of righting the ship (not perfect, but ok). Plus, his handling of Fox News reporters 'loaded' questions is entertaining on so many levels. Damn.. I'm going to miss Jon Stewart.Romanoffia:
On topic: Trump is playing to the republican bases' "baser" instincts. You know.. where God was pre-eminent in the free world, LBGT were just letters in the alphabet, people of color knew their place, and women stayed at home and kept their mouth shut. Pre-1950s basically.
- Pronouns
- He/They/Any
- TNP Nation
- Frances_Francis_the_First_of_Frances
- Discord
- Just_a_Lore
FalseRomanoffia:
1996 - Bob Dole outspends Bill Clinton by almost 3 Million Dollars. Clinton Won.
1976 - Gerald Ford outspends Jimmy Carter by 2.5 Million. Carter Won.
1964 - Barry Goldwater outspends Lyndon Johnson a ratio of almost 2:1. Johnson Won.
1960 - Richard Nixon outspends John F. Kennedy by 2 Million. Kennedy Won.
That is 4/15 elections since 1960 a rate of almost 27% where the person who spent less came out ontop.
Also your overall ideas that he will win ignore the massive issue that 33% of republicans say they wouldn't even think about voting for him, and that in the polls stacked even against Sanders, Trump losses by a margin of almost 15%
- Pronouns
- He/They/Any
- TNP Nation
- Frances_Francis_the_First_of_Frances
- Discord
- Just_a_Lore
Also I would like to point out that Trump is not as wealthy as he claims. Net Wealth =/= Liquidity. That is the value of his companies, his liquidity, his assets, bonds, real estate, investments and etc. Also remember he is recovering from bankruptcy just 7 years ago. He claims that his net wealth is 10 billion but independent estimates put it more in the range of 2-6 billion, Forbes for instance estimates his net wealth at 4.1 Billion.
He might be able to scrape up 400-500 million tops by liquidating a lot of holdings. And that does not even come close to what the Gates, Koch Brothers, Bloomburg, Buffet, Ellison, and the Waltons will be pouring into the election and they make up just the 10 richest americans.
He might be able to scrape up 400-500 million tops by liquidating a lot of holdings. And that does not even come close to what the Gates, Koch Brothers, Bloomburg, Buffet, Ellison, and the Waltons will be pouring into the election and they make up just the 10 richest americans.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Romanoffia:
I seriously doubt that. I always find it amazing when people try to claim Obama is secretly muslim. Have they ignored the fact that he has ordered an astronomical amount of drone strikes since becoming President (when compared to other Presidents)? I don't agree that bombing people is always the best way of dealing with extremism at it's root causes. I seriously don't believe you can rationally say that Obama caused ISIS. If anything it has been multiple reasons and there were multiple state actors and Presidents of the USA who have had a role to play.
Obama supports energy independence, which is an important strategic and logical goal for the United States. The country cannot continue to be dependent on foreign oil. For the Iran deal, he is hardly "promoting" the building of plants. But he recognises that nuclear power is a legitimate source of energy, and that with this deal, they will have greater access to Iran in order to monitor their activities. If Iran breaks with the deal, they will know about it. It's pretty hard to hide nuclear weapons in this day and age.
I can assure you, Australia will not be a chinese colony in 20 years time. To take this incredibly large and dangerous land from the citizens would be very dangerous for those who are not prepared for it. The way our government is structured, the way our military operates, and the way the land is, would make an invasion incredibly, incredibly difficult, and the economic damages to the economy of the region would be extremely significant.Even still, our alliances with New Zealand, the USA, Britain, Japan, as well as stronger ties with Indonesia (at least where China is concerned) and even INdia, would result in a massive global catastrophe. If anything we should be more concerned with the capabilities of North Korea to one day go nuts and bomb us because they cannot reach the United States. I think that is a ridiculous suggestion. it is also noteworthy that the number of US Marines in the city of Darwin was increased dramatically under the Obama administration.
Obama perhaps didn't pay as much attention to his allies in this region as President Bush did, but he also expected less from them in foreign conflicts. Thankfully his Secretaries of State have done excellent work in this region.
falapatorius:Nope. That would be George W. Bush (along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice et al). Obama just inherited that mess. He's done a decent job of righting the ship (not perfect, but ok). Plus, his handling of Fox News reporters 'loaded' questions is entertaining on so many levels. Damn.. I'm going to miss Jon Stewart.Romanoffia:
On topic: Trump is playing to the republican bases' "baser" instincts. You know.. where God was pre-eminent in the free world, LBGT were just letters in the alphabet, people of color knew their place, and women stayed at home and kept their mouth shut. Pre-1950s basically.
I couldn't agree more. Trumps responses to some of the questions would have made another candidate (had the uttered the same words) be completely out of the race for the Presidency. Trump will not be the Republican Candidate for President. We can only hope that he runs as an independent and splits the GOP vote and that Hildog wins in a landslide. Hopefully she'll get a majority of Governorships, the Senate majority, and the house majority. Finally real gun control could be on the radar! Watch out NRA.
Lord Lore:
That is true, but bankruptcy is often a very legitimate and wise business move in order to protect certain assets. I think that was probably why some of his companies went bankrupt in order to protect the greater interest or to prevent the payment of certain liabilities.
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/Them
The Koch brothers are going to be spending at least a billion dollars. That's a full 9th of Trump's fortune - and there is no way that Trump is going to spend that amount. I hope he does run as an independent though, just to further lower the GOPs vote.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Enough of this silliness. Time for different silliness.
I have a solution for everything.
I have a solution for everything.