U.S. 2016 Election

Well all lot comes down to the supreme court. Also it could also come down to who he surrounds himself with.

Don't you guys love the political season? Internet is the new age political comics

 

Okay, let's change the topic a little:

The remaining three runners have a significant amount of supporters for their campaign, but I wanna know why exactly people back them so much

So as concisely as you can, can you explain to me what makes each candidate so great?

In my opinion, here are the reasons why

Sanders: ponders to a young demographic saying that college should be free
Clinton: basically Obama part 2. Also, she likes to play the "I'm a woman" card a lot even though she denies it a lot
Trump: pretty much just speaks his mind, not thinking of any potential repercussions

 

Well I think when it comes to Trump, it has to do with his stance on PC culture (at least his supporters online anyway). That's all I can think of.

 

Sanders: He gets the hopelessness that it feels like to be a college age person, with underemployment near 60% for recent college grads up to age 25 and world rankings showing us low on most statistics. For the NPR type folks, he's the guy who wants to copy what works in other countries and for young people, he's willing to stand up to the people who caused the most recent crash and open up a path to make our future better.
Clinton: The "electability" candidate who has the lowest approval ratings of such an archetype in the past 100 or so years. She's been in government for so long that her network is strong. Bill Clinton is sorta highly revered by the democrats and independents and that's probably the last president who could say that. So there's the feeling that it'll be Clinton II, the return of 90s prosperity. She projects a sort of continuation of the democratic presidencies of the recent past. Not gonna set the world on fire, but if you like middle of the road pro-worker stuff, Clinton's probably your best bet.
Trump: Make America Great Again. He tends to be a reactionary force as exemplified by his motto. Don't like the way the countries going? Don't like the inorganic nature of modern focus-grouped politics? Don't like the changing face of America? People read different things into Making America Great AGAIN. Donald Trump is the result of years of a growing gloom and doom projection from the right wing (as opposed to the steady growth projected by the left and the stagnation that I feel a lot of people feel). Donald Trump is going to fix all of your problems and fix what the democrats broke.
So yeah, I like Clinton because radical changes in leadership would either crush our economy (Sanders policies would limit investment and send us staggering into another recession) or make our allies question our judgment (as has already begun, with world leaders asking how Trump is doing so well and hurrying to make deals before the election in case Trump wins). So on these choices, I choose Clinton. 4 years from now, she's either going to be super obviously the favorite or she might as well not run because nobody really loves Hillary so much as they think she's the "smart" choice.

 

Sanders: he has a great approach to making the country great, but his economics is such utter crap that the plans will fail without a good formula to make it work.

Clinton: I honestly can't see her being any good for this country at all. I cannot find 1 solid piece of good that she did, that would make her a great candidate. Give me Ellen DeGeneres and I could probably find a few things that would make her a great candidate were she to throw her name into the proverbial hat. At this point, I think it's all about trying to make history again.

Trump: He doesn't stand for political correctness, making his speech more blunt. He is the only candidate that hasn't flipped-flopped on his illegal immigration stance since his campaign started. When business deals were falling through, he never backed down on his stances like other politicians do. He has put more money into his campaign than any other candidate. Contrary to the belief by the media and the lies they feed to the sheep, he has gathered so many supporters (both good and bad) because people are sick of the same old bullshit your typical politician does: beat around the bush, lie to you, and ALWAYS change their opinions when it's convenient for them and works in favor of the special interests (or the special interests pull their puppet strings and make them sing a different tune). He has ripped the political establishment a new one.

What's interesting is people are being paid to protest Trump, so he's already creating jobs just by sticking with the campaign for presidency. It's also showing quite a lot about the paid protesters in how far they're willing to go to derail the campaign; many of the violence at his rallies are done by the anti-Trump protesters. What's that tell you about the current establishment? The career politicians are scared and they're getting more and more desperate.

 

What it tells me that these protestors are one of two things:

1. People paid by Clinton, Sanders, or one of the parties told to do whatever possible to disrupt his rallies
2. People so butthurt by Trump's statements that they'll do whatever it takes to derail his speeches.

These protests have gotten severely out of hand. One time when he was trying to go to a GOP event in California the protests got so bad that he had to leave his motorcade, climb through (or over) a chainlink fence, up a hill, and through a back door of the hotel where the event was being held

Source: http://nbc4i.com/2016/04/29/protest...eak-into-california-hotel-for-gop-convention/

 

"Panders to a young demographic" implies that he's only doing it to get votes and not because he genuinely cares about the issues. That's disputable considering that Sanders has had a consistent track record for supporting students and younger Americans dating back to as early as 2001 when he first sponsored the Higher Education Assistance Improvement Act, which was a bill that increased funds toward student financial assistance. Going even further back in his speech against the first gulf war, one of his core points he cites for his opposition to it is his concern for young Americans being sent off to fight. Notice by the way that as the camera changes angles during that speech, no one is on the congress floor to listen, but he still gives the speech anyway. It's certainly one thing to criticize Sanders over disagreements of policy, but I don't think there's any denying that he has a real concern over the issues.

I'd also like to point out that practically nothing Sanders has proposed for his economic policies is anything that hasn't already been implemented successfully in other developed countries before. Internationally speaking, Sanders is a centrist. If you want to talk about bad economic policy, bad economic policy looks like a country where the number one cause of bankruptcy is medical expenses. There is a country that currently suffers from this affliction: it's called the United States. Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Norway... These countries don't suffer from this issue, and guess what--they all share something in common: socialized medicine. The irony of Single Payer healthcare is that it actually saves more money because it cuts out a lot of middle men and obscene profiteering that inflates the cost of healthcare. I'm not just saying this as a matter of opinion; it's simply a fact. Other countries spend less per capita yet get better statistics under single payer.

 

Looks like Sanders won the WV primary by a pretty sizable margin



I'm not really surprised. Clinton isn't exactly a favorite in this state due to her having a hand in shutting down a number of coal mines in this state and leading to one of the biggest coal companies in the country declaring bankruptcy.

 

Who do you support?

 

Honestly, out of the bunch, I'd support Trump. The reason can be explained in some of the earlier posts I made

 

My allegiance lies with Democratic Socialist but I'm more of an independent as I harbor both views. That being said I am voting Sanders no matter how unlikely he is to win. If he loses probably trump. And quite honestly it's because trump since he was younger always stated he was going to campaign like he is now. And has been incredibly consistent with his ideas. Whereas our good friend Hillary will say just about anything to get the vote for the delegates. And you Can say people change. Thats bullshit.

Against gays, for gays. For fracking, against fracking. Barely raising minimum wage to 41 cents in another country because of profitiable gains. So in my opinion voting Hillary is a God damn mistake. I would rather vote for Trump in the situation of terrible vs. Terrible. I also ain't see Hillary getting arrested during civil rights movements and putting his neck out there to talk to her constiutates (a reason to vote Sanders btw. ). Fans whatever people call em now a days.

So if we're going to turn America into Shit let's go with trump.

 

I agree, although not wholeheartedly.

 

This. That's probably one of the biggest reasons I would rather vote for a 3rd party than vote for Hillary. She flip flops on topics more than a pancake.

"I am against gay marriage."
*week later gay marriage is legalized*
"I am for gay marriage."

Elaborate. Is there a particular point you disagree with?

 

Mainly his attitude of " I am qualified for President because of all the Hotels and Buildings I have built and all the great deals I've made in business" instead of political experience. Now I can get having a person outside of the Washington political sphere being a great good especially for the morale of the majority of Americans being working and middle class and not as overtly involved in politics as some members of the upper class, but I just see Trump as a narcissistic, egocentric, billionaire, who I don't doubt will be good for jobs but as far as foreign policy and social rights issues will be a nightmare. I just don't know, when it comes down to Clinton or Trump, I would vote for Trump, but I honestly don't see how he would really be any better than Clinton.
And honestly, I could not vote for Sanders, I agree with his stance on gun-control but that's it, even though his temperament and political reliability are infinitely better than Clinton or Trump.

 

The thing is when it comes to the American economy, "great businessman" is usually code word for crony capitalist; someone who gets rich not by actually building a business from the ground up, treating his employees and customers well, and generating franchise loyalty, but instead by cutting and short-changing everywhere they can in order to maximize profits at the top, while rigging the markets so no one can come in and compete. In these types of scenarios, the "business" may be doing well, but the people actually putting in the hard work to make them run aren't being compensated what they're owed. Case-in-point with Trump in particular, his brand of clothing lines has been outsourced to low-wage countries including Bangladesh, China, and Honduras, and he has openly admitted to bribing the other presidential candidates to get what he wants. Read: That's rigging the system. Trump actually benefits from free trade deals with these countries, so there is a notable conflict of interest here when he tells you that he isn't going to agree to these deals. This idea that merely because he's a "great businessman" means he will be good with the economy is dubious. This shouldn't come as a surprise but, it turns out it's not that hard to make lots of money when you have several millions of dollars in inheritance from your rich family to start with, and knowing how to make yourself rich says nothing about your ability to raise the standard of living for everyone else. Anybody can cut worker wages and benefits to save the extra money for themselves. Actually growing your business through making great products and treating your employees well is another talent entirely.

 

Spoken like a true socialist. Not demeaning you here, just how I read it.

Let me ask you something, if Trump has a conflict of interest with the points you put out then why is he running against it? You realize how contradictory that makes Trump so what do you think he plans to do?

Everyone knows running for president has no economic value. There's so much you can't do as president compared to what he could have been doing in the background.

So why run against what made him successful? You don't think for one moment that he's doing this because he knows how messed up it is? You don't think the guy is genuine in believing he could make it fair again?

Serous question because despite how much I disagree with almost everything you said I feel we are right in one essential point, there is corruption at the highest level of government. Money does flow back and forth at the top and it has succeeded and shutting up everyone else.

In my opinion, what better person to destroy that corruption with one of the very people who has absolutely nothing to gain for opposing it. It's this point I stress that I support Trump, I can only chalk it up to his patriotism and genuine love of country. Laugh if you want, I can't logically come up with any other reason for deliberately shutting off your own gravy train.
If someone could actually come up with a real reason why Trump is doing this then I want to hear it because everything seems to come back to his slogan. It's the only thing that makes sense on why he's running.

 

If this isn't meant to be a demeaning statement, I'm not sure what purpose is served in mentioning it. You don't strike me as the socialist type, so I wouldn't assume that it's meant as a compliment either.

Same reason Hillary claims to stand up against the banks while taking millions of dollars from them.

This is like asking why would Wall Street knowingly sell a bunch of toxic assets just to turn around and bid against their own clients? Because that's the conflict of interest, silly. The answer is right inside the question. They stand to benefit from lying about what they're selling. That's why you shouldn't trust them.

The question shouldn't be why should we doubt Trump just because there is a conflict of interest, but rather given that there is a conflict of interest in what he says, why should we trust what he's telling us in the first place?

Americans hate the free trade deals, but we also know that Trump makes money off of them. So let's do the math. Suppose you're a business-savvy man running for President. How do you get elected and still enact the policies you want if they're in conflict with the interests of your constituents? The answer is pretty obvious really...

Same thing politicians do every night Pinky, tell you what you want to hear and do the opposite.

It sure brought home the bacon for Dick Cheney's company Halliburton, which made away with $39.5 billion from the Iraq war. Clinton's repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act paved the way for the economic collapse in 2008. I'd say the presidency holds tremendous economic influence.

Because it's politically convenient in the moment and gets you elected? You're acting as if there's no such thing as ulterior motives in politics. Bruh, it's almost all ulterior motives, lol. You seem to intuitively recognize this when it comes to Hillary, but keep making an exception for Trump. Look past the rhetoric man. Like, search your feelings. You know it to be true. I think there was supposed to be a Star Wars reference here at some point, but I may have fudged it up...

Well no take-backsies.

Of course not. He will say anything for political expediency.

Right, but ask yourself who it's flowing back and forth from and why? It's transferring back and forth between the revolving door of big business and government. Big business like the Trump Organization, wherein Donald has openly admitted that he donated to campaigns for political favors to his business interests. That doesn't make him an outsider; that makes him on the other side of the same coin. Instead of taking bribes he's the one giving them. Is the mob absolved from wrongdoing when a crooked cop accepts their money, or are they both guilty?

 

That came out of me more passive-aggressive then I meant. It was neither demeaning or complementary, just voicing out the clumsy attempt to fit you in my mind's eye

It's not obvious at all, I'm not seeing your argument. There is nothing to be gain for running as president when everything was working just perfectly fine for him before. He gains nothing for going against wall street or the lobbyist and he gains nothing for standing with them either since that puts him back to square one. In fact now it's worse because he's public enemy number 1.

Why come out and throw under the bus every person he has ever done those deals with? He is not the puppet like Clinton is, no one is telling him to do this for X amount of money and for a specific agenda. He can make his own money just fine
(And I completely dispute that he didn't earn his pay. No matter what degree of help you think he had from the government the simple fact remains that Trump is a legitimate and very good businessman. That's a different topic and not something I want to get into)

Is there a specific ulterior motive that is driving him? I'm not talking about the wall or trade deals since you say that would hurt him and he's all talk. I'm with you in distrusting someone who used the "system" and I don't blame you. However if he's still the insider you paint him to be then why isn't he supporting Hillery Clinton? He avoids the bad publicity, maintains the facade of being "just a donor" and he gets what he wants. No one blames the donors in political campaigns either so even if the candidate bombs out he could just easily switch to another candidate. So why go through such a roundabout way to get power when the alternative is much more convenient? Especially since Trump knows these people inside out.

I know I'm asking a lot of questions but I don't have a satisfactory answer to any of them. It doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. The status quo was working just fine for him.
The only thing left is the guy is genuine in his belief that the country is better then this. It's not the only time in history someone has sacrificed their wealth and power for the betterment of a country. I'm not so cynical that every rich person is out to screw me over, not yet anyway.

I think our difference ultimately comes down to the reason why Trump is doing this. I don't see the reason why he would expose D.C like this unless he wanted to do something about it. I don't accept the reason he's doing this for himself because then that would mean he would support someone else to do so for him.

 

These are great questions that you should be asking equally of the Hillary Clinton campaign. She can already wipe her Fanny Mae with $100 bills for the rest of her life and never go broke. The Clinton family has a very respectable net worth in excess of $100 million. So why still run then? Clearly she must be doing it from a place of honesty and integrity. Clearly she's got nothing to gain. Clearly she plans to stick up for the common man. Right? OR, is it possible that, much like the banks constantly taking on bigger and riskier investments even as they're already swimming in an ocean of Ben Franklins, they're just that obscenely greedy and egotistical that no amount of power or money is ever enough for them? I wouldn't hold my breath trying to figure this one out. Personally, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that Trump could be, maybe, an incredibly egotistical person.

But really, we're continually sidestepping the very glaring elephant in the room here that Trump has already admitted to bribing politicians. If he actually cared about the corruption and stands on principle, then why did he engage in it himself? I ask again, does the mob not also bear blame when a crooked cop accepts their money?

And if the answer is "Well what could he do? He's just working within the system he's been dealt with." Then congratulations, this has been another fantastic defense of Hillary Clinton's ties to special interests.