Road to the White House 2016

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://inequalityreport.org/2015/08/09/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-black-lives-matter-the-theft-of-an-election/

 

It all makes sense.

Too bad Trump's evil plan will be ruined when Hillary winds up in prison.

 

On Sanders : http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/09/bernie-sanders-is-now-effectively-a-hostage-of-blacklivesmatter/

[Gromnir]

Haha, Donald Trump is a true bro the way he is masterfully trolling the outdated American implementation of democracy. Him announcing a independent run would bar the door to the White House for any right-wing candidate. I bet right-leaning Americans are tearing their hair out right now. Time to reform the system, I guess.

the system is peculiar. if you thinks a scheme that favors a moderate President is a good thing, then am s'posing the current approach is a win.  *shrug*  nevertheless, ross perot didn't bring about change, so am doubting that trump will.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

I can totally envision Trump riding a nuke.

[BruceVC]

...and that's why people like Trump. He is doesn't let anyone walk over him; he is nobodys bitch, he is himself.

 

Its interesting  how you seem to admire someone who lacks decorum and doesn't care who he offends

 

I want Trump to run as an independent, that's the quickest way to split the Republican support base and guarantee a Democratic, and Clinton, victory 

[Barothmuk]

http://inequalityreport.org/2015/08/09/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-black-lives-matter-the-theft-of-an-election/

 

It all makes sense.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Barothmuk

[Meshugger]

 

...and that's why people like Trump. He is doesn't let anyone walk over him; he is nobodys bitch, he is himself.

 

Its interesting  how you seem to admire someone who lacks decorum and doesn't care who he offends

 

I want Trump to run as an independent, that's the quickest way to split the Republican support base and guarantee a Democratic, and Clinton, victory 

 

 

 

 

FOX News Brett Baier (talking to Trump): Now, 15 years ago, you called yourself a liberal on health care. You were for a single-payer system, a Canadian-style system. Why were you for that then and why aren’t you for it now?

 

TRUMP: As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland. It could have worked in a different age, which is the age you’re talking about here.

 

What I’d like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees. And if I’m negotiating in New York or in New Jersey or in California, I have like one bidder. Nobody can bid.

 

You know why?

 

Because the insurance companies are making a fortune because they have control of the politicians, of course, with the exception of the politicians on this stage. (uneasy laughter) But they have total control of the politicians. They’re making a fortune.

 

Get rid of the artificial lines and you will have…yourself great plans…

 

BAIER: Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single-payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies….You’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, and Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors. And you said recently, quote, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

 

TRUMP: You’d better believe it.

 

BAIER: — they do?

 

TRUMP: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.

 

TRUMP: I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

 

TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why?

 

She didn’t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn’t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world. It was.

 

BAIER: Hold on…..We’re going to — we’re going to move on.” 

 

 

He is crashing the system with no survivors.

[Bartimaeus]

The only thing I wish is that there'd be a Democrat equivalent...I'd rather see the process break down on both sides, not just the Republicans.

[Barothmuk]

That guy gets it.

He is crashing the system with no survivors.

Your views seem to be a little all over the place.

 

Do you believe him to be Clinton's stooge or a third party rebel?

[Meshugger]

Sanders is getting the same treatment as Ron Paul did by his respective establishment back in '08 and '12, so he is off the table. At least Trump is the biggest clown in the current circus of republicans, why can't you just sit down and enjoy the show? The guy will never be president.

[Bartimaeus]

You didn't really answer his question...

[Meshugger]

He is both of course. He is the clown that makes everyone a bit uneasy.

[BruceVC]

Sanders is getting the same treatment as Ron Paul did by his respective establishment back in '08 and '12, so he is off the table. At least Trump is the biggest clown in the current circus of republicans, why can't you just sit down and enjoy the show? The guy will never be president.

In interests of levity I was thinking of the best way to describe Trump, for me he is a mutation of the American dream

 

He is obscenely wealthy, influential, successful and prominent. He has created his own iconic brand in global  business and  industry and this should be admired

 

But he is also ostentatious, haughty, supercilious, ruthless, bombastic and ostensibly utterly unconcerned with who he offends. He has this army of lawyers and he appears to many to be this inexorable force of Capitalism that cannot be stopped or challenged...yet you would think by now that  most Republicans would realize that you cannot win the presidency of the USA if you alienate or ostracize  the various minority groups in the USA.

 

And Trump seems set on offending most  minority groups, he has annoyed many Latinos and women with his comments so he just needs to exasperate the LGBT community and African Americans and he will really be dismantling his American presidential dream 

Edited August 11, 2015 by BruceVC

[Rostere]

The only thing I wish is that there'd be a Democrat equivalent...I'd rather see the process break down on both sides, not just the Republicans.

 

Bernie Sanders running as an independent  - yes please! It's the best thing which could happen to the US, with regards to raising the issue of reform. Bring forth the popcorn.

 

 

Haha, Donald Trump is a true bro the way he is masterfully trolling the outdated American implementation of democracy. Him announcing a independent run would bar the door to the White House for any right-wing candidate. I bet right-leaning Americans are tearing their hair out right now. Time to reform the system, I guess.

the system is peculiar. if you thinks a scheme that favors a moderate President is a good thing, then am s'posing the current approach is a win.  *shrug*  nevertheless, ross perot didn't bring about change, so am doubting that trump will.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

What I do not favour is a system which degenerates into a game, where it is typically never ideal to vote for the candidate which you agree with.

 

A minimal change to the current system would be for presidential candidates to be able to offer their votes to another candidate (possibly with some threshold, say 5% of national votes). That would eliminate the idiocy of Trump being the Democrats' best political ally. If you have a political system where one of the best ways to win an election is to support fringe candidates on the other side, then you know you must reform it. The current US voting system was constructed in another era, if this would have been proposed in political science today, the idea would have been laughed all the way to the waste bin.

 

Instead you have ****ing idiots like Cruz who, as soon as when they open their mouth, all I hear is the sound of Democrats getting more votes. In an alternative system, you would never risk fringe lunatics hijacking the nomination process. They would have a nomination process of their own for their own party, which would then enter into an agreement with the moderate right-wing party/parties. If these should be unable to secure an agreement on the policy of the president, you will have it very clear on paper what gave the victory to the other side - for example, "The Libertarian Party and the Republican Party were unable to agree on a consensus for defense spending, and would rather have left-wing rule than agree on the matter". Currently, candidates are instead forced to lie through their teeth to appeal to 51% or more of voters, of get people to vote at all, people who definitely do not have you as their ideal candidate. The compromises made are hard to put on paper, and the nomination process turns into a game of trying to guess who is really your candidate behind the mask he/she has put on to appeal to 51% of voters. The current system encourages gamist thinking from voters and campaign strategists, and lying/premature compromises from politicians.

[Bartimaeus]

If Bernie Sanders cannot win the Democrat nomination, then I would love to see him run as an independent: I would like to see the election ending up with no-one being elected with a majority in this ridiculous presidential election system, and seeing what absolute nonsense the House would cook up when it decides who becomes president (House decides it in the event of no majority, from what I recall from high school, right?) and the subsequent outrage from the population.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[kgambit]

If Bernie Sanders cannot win the Democrat nomination, then I would love to see him run as an independent: I would like to see the election ending up with no-one being elected with a majority in this ridiculous presidential election system, and seeing what absolute nonsense the House would cook up when it decides who becomes president (House decides it in the event of no majority, from what I recall from high school, right?) and the subsequent outrage from the population.

 

 

House would vote on President - one vote per state - from the three presidential candidates with the highest electoral vote count

Senate would vote on Vice President - one vote per senator - from the two vice-presidential candidates with the highest electoral vote count  (Trivia:  This happened once before when Martin Van Buren's running mate, Richard Johnson, didn't receive an electoral college majority; Johnson was subsequently elected by the Senate)

 

If the House is deadlocked, the VP would serve as President until the deadlock in the House is broken.

[Bartimaeus]

So...basically, my ideal scenarios would be (with it becoming less and less ideal as we go down):

 

1. Bernie wins the Democrat nomination as well as the Presidential Election.

2. Bernie wins the Democrat nomination, but is unable to win the majority in the general election...but neither are the Republicans, very possibly because of the antics of Trump. Difficult to predict what would happen as a result.

3. Bernie does NOT win the Democrat nomination, but runs as an independent...as does Trump, who similarly failed to secure the Republican nomination. The two of them manage to split the vote for both Democrats and Republicans so badly that a few states actually manage to go independent, resulting in the same outcome as above (though with significantly less chance, I think, for Bernie to become president...and absolutely so if Trump manages to knock him out of the top three).

4. Bernie does NOT win the Democrat nomination and runs as an independent, but Trump somehow wins the Republican nomination. I simply cannot see Trump possibly getting even close to winning the general election, so it falls to Bernie and any other third parties to take away votes and steal a state or two from the Democrat nomination (whom would likely be Hillary at this point, though that may change in the future) and make a mess of things. In this scenario, Bernie would technically have a better chance if it came to a general election deadlock, but it would seem like there's much less of a chance of that happening. It seems most likely the Democrat nominee would win in this scenario.

5. Bernie, having lost his Democrat nomination bid, does not run at all. Trump loses his Republican nomination bid and runs as an independent, however, and somehow manages to steal a few states and cause a general election deadlock like above. Much more likely, the Democrat nominee just outright wins it in the general election, though.

6. All other possibilities likely result in one of two crappy nominees (based on past presidential elections, anyways) winning, and que sera, sera and nihil sub sole novum and etc.

 

Though I generally identify (lol) as more of a Republican than a Democrat (political leaning tests usually always place me right in between the two, so I'm really more an independent that's dissatisfied with both, ), I'm tempted to register as a Democrat to vote for Bernie to help him win the Democrat nomination, since all the potential Republican candidates seem universally terrible, whereas I at least sort of respect and like Bernie.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Orogun01]

[Gromnir]

 

The only thing I wish is that there'd be a Democrat equivalent...I'd rather see the process break down on both sides, not just the Republicans.

 

Bernie Sanders running as an independent  - yes please! It's the best thing which could happen to the US, with regards to raising the issue of reform. Bring forth the popcorn.

 

 

Haha, Donald Trump is a true bro the way he is masterfully trolling the outdated American implementation of democracy. Him announcing a independent run would bar the door to the White House for any right-wing candidate. I bet right-leaning Americans are tearing their hair out right now. Time to reform the system, I guess.

the system is peculiar. if you thinks a scheme that favors a moderate President is a good thing, then am s'posing the current approach is a win.  *shrug*  nevertheless, ross perot didn't bring about change, so am doubting that trump will.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 Currently, candidates are instead forced to lie through their teeth to appeal to 51% or more of voters, of get people to vote at all, people who definitely do not have you as their ideal candidate. 

 

 good for a morning laugh.  am hopeful that you do not honest believe that your proposed changes would lead to greater honesty.

 

and what you mistaken think o' as gamist is actual kinda the fundamental cornerstone o' democratic politics: compromise.  is a great deal o' misunderstanding 'bout the role o' the US President.  have talked our self hoarse on more than one occasion trying to explain checks n' balances and how the US system discourages extreme changes, even when such changes appear necessary.  the President don't make laws, and even in regards to foreign policy, he/she is bounded by more than a few practical limitations.  obama were running on a platform o' change, and he largely failed to bring 'bout the lion's share o' those promised changes.  got a President elected with a Congress controlled by same party and nevertheless, change were largely illusory. failure to bring 'bout change were not 'cause obama were a liar, but 'cause he didn't have the juice to bring about such change.  

 

(we highly recommend educating your self 'bout the actual powers o' the US President and the practical limitations o' Presidential power.)

 

the President don't have near as much power as folks seem to believe.  he Needs a mandate from the People to get Congress to make changes... he Needs significantly better than 51% if he/she wants to accomplish anything other than maintenance o' the status quo.  

 

is nothing wrong with the occasional trump or perot.  if the People feel that their elected officials is not representing their ideals, they will turn to alternatives.  is votes for such a candidate wasted?  depends on what you mean.  a large enough number o' folks voting for a fringe candidate forces the parties to change, and that is how democracy is s'posed to work.  yeah, is unfortunate for republicans that their fringe candidates is visible businessmen or entertainers whereas democrat fringe candidates is comical conspiracy theorists, but so what?  

 

Reagan, btw, were considered a fringe candidate for the Presidency.  am suspecting that trump silliness is... not.  trump is no doubt aware that he cannot possibly win Presidency as a traditional candidate who offers compromise and moderation.  the only way he gets enough votes is if he can gain momentum as did Reagan and build 'pon the current dissatisfaction Americans feel for their political representatives.  trump's bluster is likely as calculated and disingenuous as any other candidate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Barothmuk]

At least Trump is the biggest clown in the current circus of republicans,

So meme value?

 

Fair enough.

[Meshugger]

 

At least Trump is the biggest clown in the current circus of republicans,

So meme value?

 

Fair enough.

 

 

Almost. I see nothing sincere in this race outside of Sanders (I do not agree with him 100% but he still needs to have the backbone and rectitude of Teddy Roosevelt to reach out to everyone). After the Paul fiascos in '08 and '12 i started to read some history on the election cycles, for example on what platform Reagan ran on in 1980, the McGovern-hoopla in '72 and so on, i can easily tell that the odds are quite stacked against anyone trying to fight the good fight. 

 

Some history for everyone! 

 

[Nonek]

Clinton vs Trump, independence not looking so sweet now is it?

 

Of course I jest, i've really no knowledge of the USA's political machinations, and would not be so arrogant to judge the candidates or the system. Hope you folk live in uninteresting times under your next administration.

[Hurlshort]

That's really the crux, if we get a terrible President, the odds are he or she will simply be ineffective.  To actually get stuff done, you need to be able to work with congress.  The most dangerous President is one that can work with the opposing party.  

[HoonDing]

 

 

...and that's why people like Trump. He is doesn't let anyone walk over him; he is nobodys bitch, he is himself.

 

Its interesting  how you seem to admire someone who lacks decorum and doesn't care who he offends

 

I want Trump to run as an independent, that's the quickest way to split the Republican support base and guarantee a Democratic, and Clinton, victory 

 

 

 

 

FOX News Brett Baier (talking to Trump): Now, 15 years ago, you called yourself a liberal on health care. You were for a single-payer system, a Canadian-style system. Why were you for that then and why aren’t you for it now?

 

TRUMP: As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland. It could have worked in a different age, which is the age you’re talking about here.

 

What I’d like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees. And if I’m negotiating in New York or in New Jersey or in California, I have like one bidder. Nobody can bid.

 

You know why?

 

Because the insurance companies are making a fortune because they have control of the politicians, of course, with the exception of the politicians on this stage. (uneasy laughter) But they have total control of the politicians. They’re making a fortune.

 

Get rid of the artificial lines and you will have…yourself great plans…

 

BAIER: Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single-payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies….You’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, and Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors. And you said recently, quote, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

 

TRUMP: You’d better believe it.

 

BAIER: — they do?

 

TRUMP: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.

 

TRUMP: I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

 

TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why?

 

She didn’t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn’t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world. It was.

 

BAIER: Hold on…..We’re going to — we’re going to move on.” 

 

 

He is crashing the system with no survivors.

 

Link to source pls

[Rostere]

 good for a morning laugh.  am hopeful that you do not honest believe that your proposed changes would lead to greater honesty.

 

Obviously not, because no systemic change has ever led to any actual change, right? Arguments (if it can even be called an argument) like these are always the last resort for mediocre naysayers with nothing to offer themselves.

 

 

and what you mistaken think o' as gamist is actual kinda the fundamental cornerstone o' democratic politics: compromise.

 

When I say "gamism" I'm not referring to the whatever compromises a politician with a narrow base does when trying to appeal to 51% or more of national voters (which I wouldn't call "gamism" to begin with). The gamism I'm talking about is when you are voting for a less ideal candidate, or even a diametrically opposed candidate, in order to achieve your political goals. Some voting systems encourage rampant gamism, in others there is basically no gamism possible.

Consider the case of a US state which applies the winner-takes-it-all rule of awarding electors to the electoral college. Opinion poll shows the three candidates' standings as far-right: 40% right: 40% and left: 20%. Now imagine you are a left-wing voter in this state. Since the left-wing candidate looks so unlikely to win, you might as well shove your vote up your ass for all it matters. However, if you can award electors for the far-right candidate, you will be stealing electors from the right-wing candidate. It is thus in this situation imperative that you go to the voting booth and vote for the far-right candidate. On a larger scale, it is also rational for political donors to fund extremists on the other side of the political spectrum, because they will only steal voters from viable opposing moderate candidates and not from candidates on your side of the spectrum. Ralph Nader is another recent example of gamism at work, in the election of 2000 (specifically in Florida). A switch from Democrat to Nader in effect equals one vote for Bush.

 

Obviously, by game theory (assuming one political axis) this will always result in a competition between two parties (and don't even get me started on the disadvantages with regards to corruption of leaving all political power to two party organizations...). This will also result in a very low voter participation in states which lean heavily in one political direction.

 

But of course that's only the beginning of the problems with the current system. The rigid, medieval way of assigning the number of electors to states has resulted in the fact that a vote in Washington DC is literally worth more than three votes in Texas:

 

 

 

 

 

 

is a great deal o' misunderstanding 'bout the role o' the US President.  have talked our self hoarse on more than one occasion trying to explain checks n' balances and how the US system discourages extreme changes, even when such changes appear necessary.  the President don't make laws, and even in regards to foreign policy, he/she is bounded by more than a few practical limitations.  obama were running on a platform o' change, and he largely failed to bring 'bout the lion's share o' those promised changes.  got a President elected with a Congress controlled by same party and nevertheless, change were largely illusory. failure to bring 'bout change were not 'cause obama were a liar, but 'cause he didn't have the juice to bring about such change.  

 

(we highly recommend educating your self 'bout the actual powers o' the US President and the practical limitations o' Presidential power.)

 

the President don't have near as much power as folks seem to believe.  he Needs a mandate from the People to get Congress to make changes... he Needs significantly better than 51% if he/she wants to accomplish anything other than maintenance o' the status quo.

 

You are correct about the point of the powers of the president. Nevertheless, the importance of the role does not matter for the argument. As my argument goes, we could just as well assume that the role of the President is about, say, choosing a flag and a national anthem (and some other superficial stuff), and occasionally appearing on TV with vague motivational speeches.

 

The argument is about how you best choose a person which maximizes some sort of index of political sympathy taken over all voters (which I would say is the point with democracy).

 

is nothing wrong with the occasional trump or perot.  if the People feel that their elected officials is not representing their ideals, they will turn to alternatives.  is votes for such a candidate wasted?  depends on what you mean.  a large enough number o' folks voting for a fringe candidate forces the parties to change, and that is how democracy is s'posed to work.

 

But the point is that this can be done in a formal way. You could just say that sitting at home and not voting "forces the parties to change". That it is a fairly ****ing stupid way to try to achieve political change, compared to having your candidate give their votes/support to some other candidate in exchange for some concession. That way you can have concretely on paper the effect of your vote directly. Having a political system which requires you to award the opposing side with four years in power as soon as some fringe candidate decides for a quixotic campaign sucks, if you look at the alternatives. That's pretty undeniable.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Rostere

[Orogun01]

That's really the crux, if we get a terrible President, the odds are he or she will simply be ineffective.  To actually get stuff done, you need to be able to work with congress.  The most dangerous President is one that can work with the opposing party.  

In a non corporate government that might actually be true, in our republic stuff gets done because of corporate or self interest not because of the best interest of the people.