The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[BlueK]

I like the idea of at least four, maybe six parties.

We could have two major parties that strike alliances with one or several of the smaller parties. That way, different interests would be addressed. If government slows down to obtain consensus, instead one party just bulling itself through as the Dems do, then we would have a better represented government. I agree with your analysis.

I can't remember what it's called, but there is a political science theory that says that the number of major political parties that exist in a country tends to equal the number of representatives per election district + 1. We have one member of Congress per district, so 2 major parties. I would like to amend the Constitution to give at least 2 per district. Maybe even 3 would be better. That would basically ensure a third major party springs up. The number of reps in congress is pretty much arbitrary. it wouldn't necessarily have to double in number. You could just increase them in size to cover more territory. The voter can still only select one person but the three candidates with the most votes all win.

[Sullyute]

www.nascar.com

[Moliere]

Will she raise taxes which will slow the rate of investment? Will she eliminate carried interests which will piss off my few hedge fund clients? What will she do to eliminate 409 problems? What will her spending be given all the new programs she says she wants? Is she completely opposed to Friedman monetary ideas? She is most likely a supporter of neo-Keynesian spending.

My wages are peanuts but I would hate to see her there and the regulations she will implement will create monopolies favoring large industry titans, her donors, over small to medium-sized clients.

Is she in favor of universal banks, as opposed to former split of commercial, asset and balance based banking, against investment banking? Is she in favor of some the new FASB changes (CECL changes)?

Why would you say that?

Because she's in bed with Wall Street. I don't say that pejoratively, but in a sense it's true. She isn't the champion of the low-wage earner that she claims to be. This is why Bernie and his friends were so adamantly against her and some continue to be. Most of them will only vote for her because Trump would win if they don't, and Trump is awful and horrible.

Clinton with a GOP controlled House is the best (possible) outcome from this election. She's not a leader and I think Paul Ryan will walk all over her (as will many of our allies) and she'll fail quite a bit...but she also won't allow xenophobia nad all other phobias run rampant.

[Topper]

[QUOTE=Moliere;1268320

Clinton with a GOP controlled House is the best (possible) outcome from this election. She's not a leader and I think Paul Ryan will walk all over her (as will many of our allies) and she'll fail quite a bit...but she also won't allow xenophobia nad all other phobias run rampant.[/QUOTE]

Well the GOP may get hammered and the Dems may control almost everything. That would be a disaster because of those abandoning the GOP in Congressional races. For me the best possible outcome would be the GOP to keep the House and the Senate, we get a brokered decision for the President and neither Clinton nor Trump are elected. Mitt rides in on a white horse.

[PaloAltoCougar]

...
We might as well agree to disagree, because other than cheering, diehard Democrats, I haven't read anything suggesting Hillary even did a journeymanlike job in her role as Secretary of State.

Quoth the cheering, diehard Democrat John McCain, "Her work as secretary of state, with the exception of this issue of Benghazi — which isn’t going away — I think has been outstanding."

BTW, while I still don't think HRC was a disaster at State, I don't think Benghazi makes the top five of her mistakes, and I'm ready to move on. I'd rather focus on Trump.

[YOhio]

Here is a transcript of a press conference from a man who the day before officially accepted the presidential nomination from the party of Abraham Lincoln.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/22/1225832...ruz-transcript

[Topper]

Quoth the cheering, diehard Democrat John McCain, "Her work as secretary of state, with the exception of this issue of Benghazi — which isn’t going away — I think has been outstanding."

BTW, while I still don't think HRC was a disaster at State, I don't think Benghazi makes the top five of her mistakes, and I'm ready to move on. I'd rather focus on Trump.

Well McCain lost all credibility on his ability to judge a person's work once he selected Palin.

[venkman]

It's disappointing to learn that our system of checks and balances is strong enough to minimize the harm Trump could do with a GOP-controlled Congress, but is not strong enough to withstand the evil machinations of the better-schooled Obama and Hillary.

The constitution is just a piece of paper. Checks and balances on a piece of paper won't stop a tyrant if the people and courts won't rein them in. The power of the media to inform the people and hold politicians accountable is our best defense against government corruption and overreach. The MSM are totally corrupt and simply stop doing their job when a Dem is in the WH. They will be all over Trump's ass should he be president. That's the difference.

[falafel]

Here is a transcript of a press conference from a man who the day before officially accepted the presidential nomination from the party of Abraham Lincoln.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/22/1225832...ruz-transcript

What's the purpose of the convention again? Oh yeah, to get ratings and sell ad space.

And I talk this way because we’re all together. We created the one of the most successful conventions in the history of conventions. And the television ratings for this convention were through the roof.

[old_gregg]

The MSM are totally corrupt and simply stop doing their job when a Dem is in the WH.

[venkman]

[Topper]

The constitution is just a piece of paper. Checks and balances on a piece of paper won't stop a tyrant if the people and courts won't rein them in. The power of the media to inform the people and hold politicians accountable is our best defense against government corruption and overreach. The MSM are totally corrupt and simply stop doing their job when a Dem is in the WH. They will be all over Trump's ass should he be president. That's the difference.

Agreed. A GOP is in the office, and they badger him like hell. A Dem is in the office and they worship him or her and shower such person with accolades. Obama hadn't done shit and he was nominated and won a Nobel Prize.

The MSM would be powerful enough to stop Trump together with the Courts.

Clinton would be given a free pass and the media would become partners in crime. They treat her so daintily so as to avoid hurting her feelings.

[YOhio]

The 2016 Presidential Election Primary Thread

Great interview on Trump's appeal to poor, white hillbillies.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...s-poor-whites/

[frank ryan]

Agreed. A GOP is in the office, and they badger him like hell. A Dem is in the office and they worship him or her and shower such person with accolades. Obama hadn't done shit and he was nominated and won a Nobel Prize.

The MSM would be powerful enough to stop Trump together with the Courts.

Clinton would be given a free pass and the media would become partners in crime. They treat her so daintily so as to avoid hurting her feelings.

crazy conspiratorial talk

[Topper]

crazy conspiratorial talk

It is not a conspiracy but based on confirmation bias, the MSM does not question somebody with whom they agree. They attack like buzzards at the last meal if there is somebody they find disagreeable. And most GOP Presidents have not held the same beliefs. It is akin to asking about polyandry in Sunday School, and if Joseph Smith had sex with his polyandrous wives. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy if they all groupthink.