The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[USUC]

A guaranteed income makes me bristle a little bit. I know their have been some "free market" economists who have advocated for it, but I highly doubt we can afford it. There are 200+ million people in this country, if everyone gets a basic income there is no way this costs less than current entitlements (I bet its not even close). I guess I need to look into it a little bit more. How much would a guaranteed income be a year? Who would and who wouldn't get a guaranteed income? I assume this would be only be available for citizens.

[Commando]

And we're hell bent on importing as many of these same people into the country as we can..

I know right! Lazy immigrants!

[PaloAltoCougar]

I don't like Ted Cruz, but he shows himself really well in this exchange. I couldn't imagine taking this kind of shit day after day.

http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/tr...-dont-want-you

I finally watched that and, having read the Sullivan essay as well, am even more depressed about a Drumpf candidacy. I dislike Cruz as well, but Drumpf is truly in a class by himself. Cruz's bombardment today on Drumpf's character comes a few months too late. Cruz believed he could win by taking the high road, which is why he was almost deferential until the past few days, but that miscalculation will cost him the nomination.

Trump fans, including dumb yokels like the guy in the linked Cruz confrontation, who believe Trump is going to be Reaganesque are truly idiots. Putting aside questions of character, Trump supported Carter and Mondale against Reagan, and took out a full-page ad in 1987 criticizing Reagan's foreign policy, oblivious to the fact that that policy would lead to the end of the Cold War eliminate the Iron Curtain, one of the truly great accomplishments of the 20th century.

[Northwestcoug]

I finally watched that and, having read the Sullivan essay as well, am even more depressed about a Drumpf candidacy. I dislike Cruz as well, but Drumpf is truly in a class by himself. Cruz's bombardment today on Drumpf's character comes a few months too late. Cruz believed he could win by taking the high road, which is why he was almost deferential until the past few days, but that miscalculation will cost him the nomination.

Trump fans, including dumb yokels like the guy in the linked Cruz confrontation, who believe Trump is going to be Reaganesque are truly idiots. Putting aside questions of character, Trump supported Carter and Mondale against Reagan, and took out a full-page ad in 1987 criticizing Reagan's foreign policy, oblivious to the fact that that policy would lead to the end of the Cold War eliminate the Iron Curtain, one of the truly great accomplishments of the 20th century.

Not to mention his coziness with Trump in the beginning, when he thought being chummy with Trump would endear Cruz with his fans because he thought he would flame out long ago. Hell, we all thought that. But he based his campaign on it.

[Topper]

I finally watched that and, having read the Sullivan essay as well, am even more depressed about a Drumpf candidacy. I dislike Cruz as well, but Drumpf is truly in a class by himself. Cruz's bombardment today on Drumpf's character comes a few months too late. Cruz believed he could win by taking the high road, which is why he was almost deferential until the past few days, but that miscalculation will cost him the nomination.

Trump fans, including dumb yokels like the guy in the linked Cruz confrontation, who believe Trump is going to be Reaganesque are truly idiots. Putting aside questions of character, Trump supported Carter and Mondale against Reagan, and took out a full-page ad in 1987 criticizing Reagan's foreign policy, oblivious to the fact that that policy would lead to the end of the Cold War eliminate the Iron Curtain, one of the truly great accomplishments of the 20th century.

I too am despondent by the current state of the GOP. Seeing good people such as yourself meandering over to the dark side of Hillary, whom I view as being beset by Nixonian-Napoleonic complex, and seeing the GOP without a semblance of message being defeated by an unattainable, catastrophically unaffordable socialist agenda is almost more than a sane, rational person can endure. Now I know why Russians live a life of inebriation and thick, dense novels. It is possible the GOP will be a shadow of itself as a result of the devastation heaped upon it in a time frame, when a sensible candidate would have avoided the Apocalypse.

[Northwestcoug]

Embedded Tweet

[SeattleUte]

Has Trump really said that his battle with venereal diseases is his personal Vietnam?

[PaloAltoCougar]

Has Trump really said that his battle with venereal diseases is his personal Vietnam?

Yes, per many media outlets, he said so on the Howard Stern show. Here's a portion of the transcript:

STERN: Now getting back to dating, and when you got to say to a woman, you gotta go to my personal doctor and I’m gonna have you checked out, is that a tough thing to say to a woman?

TRUMP: It’s amazing, I can’t even believe it. I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world. It is a dangerous world out there. It’s like Vietnam, sort of.

STERN: Hey it’s your personal Vietnam isn’t it?

TRUMP: It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier!

STERN: A lot of guys who went through Vietnam came out unscathed. A lot of guys going through the 80’s having sex with different women came out with AIDS and all kinds of things.

TRUMP: This is better than Vietnam, but it’s uh… it’s more fun.

STERN: A little better, but every v****a is a landmine, haven’t we both said that in private?

TRUMP: [intense laughter] I think it is a potential landmine. There’s some real danger there.

STERN: When you go to a bar, do you ever go with a fleet of doctors and have them check all the women, and then party with the uninfected?

TRUMP: [laughter] The few! You mean the few uninfected!

…


TRUMP: You have to have a roving doctor, his office has to be in your briefcase. He has to be your best friend. He has to go with you at all times. He has to do onsite tests. [laughter]

This from a guy who received multiple deferments to avoid Vietnam (including medical deferments, despite his magnificent athletic prowess, and who belittled John McCain's service. Apparently being tortured by the Vietcong is nothing compared to gonorrhea.

[Northwestcoug]

I think this is spot on:

Cruz always knew better.

He knew that Trump’s “rapist” remarks were objectionable on the merits, that the critiques of it weren’t “political correctness” run amok. He knew that Trump is a man of poor character, is out of his depth on foreign affairs, and has little grasp of domestic policy. He knew the candidates attacking Trump earnestly objected to much about the man, and that the billionaire frequently tells lies and untruths to the public.

But Cruz saw that Trump was popular with a faction of the Republican base, so he cozied up to the demagogue, became a mendacious apologist for his egregious misbehavior, and brazenly misled the public about Trump’s character. Cruz did this because he thought that he could co-opt Trump’s popularity and win over a lot of his populist supporters. Instead, he helped to legitimate Trump, ratified the narrative that Trump alone forces the media to pay attention to the issues most important to a faction of Republican voters, and sapped some of the strongest critiques of Trump—the ones that Cruz would later used in his own attack ads—of their potency.

Cruz is, of course, just one dishonest man. Other members of “the party,” including other candidates on the debate stage beside him, were attacking Trump. For months, however, they weren’t doing so any more than they were attacking one another. At times, it seemed like Jeb Bush disliked Marco Rubio as much as Trump. He aimed his fire at his fellow Floridian because, at the time, it seemed politically expedient. And Rubio, at times, directed his fire at rivals he’d prefer to Trump.

That, too, sent signals and cues to voters.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-trump/480294/

When Cruz loses Indiana and the nomination tonight, I hope everyone remembers that he helped Trump's path to the nomination. It's doubtful even if he started attacking Trump early, that a different outcome would have happened. But he and others will go down in history as supposedly serious presidential contenders who let Trump ruin the GOP:

[Maximus]

Is it too late for an independent?

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Yes, per many media outlets, he said so on the Howard Stern show. Here's a portion of the transcript:

This from a guy who received multiple deferments to avoid Vietnam (including medical deferments, despite his magnificent athletic prowess, and who belittled John McCain's service. Apparently being tortured by the Vietcong is nothing compared to gonorrhea.

So now things said on Howard Stern at Stern's suggestion, amidst "intense laughter", are to be taken seriously? This either says that there isn't enough to truly attack Trump on or Trump's attacks on the media are well founded. I think there is plenty to attack Trump on actual points he's made while running for president that digging out a response to the host of a comedy talk show shouldn't be among the things people are talking about. However I realize I don't view Trump as worse than Hitler and Lucifers secret love child, rather I think he'd just be a bad president so my views aren't inline with most of the media/CS.

[YOhio]

So now things said on Howard Stern at Stern's suggestion, amidst "intense laughter", are to be taken seriously? This either says that there isn't enough to truly attack Trump on or Trump's attacks on the media are well founded. I think there is plenty to attack Trump on actual points he's made while running for president that digging out a response to the host of a comedy talk show shouldn't be among the things people are talking about. However I realize I don't view Trump as worse than Hitler and Lucifers secret love child, rather I think he'd just be a bad president so my views aren't inline with most of the media/CS.

You better check yourself, bro. You're disagreeing with PAC, who still is Big Dawg around here even though he loves Obama.

[Commando]

Has Trump really said that his battle with venereal diseases is his personal Vietnam?

I prefer candidates who didn't get themselves "captured."

[PaloAltoCougar]

You better check yourself, bro. You're disagreeing with PAC, who still is Big Dawg around here even though he loves Obama.

HFN is one of the elect whose critiques and dissent are both welcome and respected; you can only dream of such status. And btw, I think the Stern Show comments are insignificant among the literally hundreds of offensive/stupid things Trump has said, which is why I didn't bring it up until SU inquired. That said, can one imagine any President of the United States talking like that in front of an audience of millions? By comparison, Bill Clinton was Gordon B. Hinckley-like in his respect for women.

Trump's ideas relating the The Wall, tariffs on the Chinese, offshoring, killing the families of terrorists, universal health care, etc., are of greater significance relative to his unworthiness, but the women/sex/VD stuff is more entertaining.

BTW, CB-types characterize me as an Obama-lover because I see some positives (and lots of flaws) in Obama, so I'll throw the Trump fans a bone by acknowledging that Trump is an absolute master at branding. Other than the Wall, he only speaks of outcomes (we're going to start winning again!), rather than specific policies, because he really has no deep convictions. But he succeeds by using his branding expertise ("low energy Jeb, Little Marco, Lyin' Ted Cruz, Cheatin' Hillary," etc.), he knows that a substantial portion of the electorate is so shallow that such things stick. I doubt he'd be as successful in dealing with Xi, Putin et al.

[Pelado]

Charles Murray has advocated a guaranteed income:

http://www.fljs.org/files/publications/Murray.pdf

The key is not providing an incentive to do something stupid -- like have kids you have no way of supporting. You have the guaranteed income and that's it, it's a zero sum game with the decisions you make.

A guaranteed income makes me bristle a little bit. I know their have been some "free market" economists who have advocated for it, but I highly doubt we can afford it. There are 200+ million people in this country, if everyone gets a basic income there is no way this costs less than current entitlements (I bet its not even close). I guess I need to look into it a little bit more. How much would a guaranteed income be a year? Who would and who wouldn't get a guaranteed income? I assume this would be only be available for citizens.

Murray's proposal from a few years ago (link from CMBF above) would be $10k for each adult with a $3k premium deducted for health insurance, resulting in a net $7k payment directly deposited into a bank account. There would be no decrease to the grant for the first $25k of earned income, but the grant would gradually decrease for earned income between $25k - 50k down to $5k.

His plan would use the guaranteed income to replace Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare programs, agricultural subsidies, and corporate welfare. He estimated the first year cost of the GI system to be about the same as the cost of the replaced programs. He expects the growth rate of a GI system to be substantially lower than the projections for all the replaced programs, in part because of the simplicity of the bureaucracy required to administer the GI system as opposed to all the other programs. He projected $1 trillion in annual savings within 17 years of implementation. He ignores transition costs, citing flexibility considering the eventual savings.