The 2016 US American Election Thread

[ernie]

Originally Posted by GGG

Usually it is motivated by something other than good will. Whether it be reputation, security of supply, currying municipal or government tax breaks, etc. I would be surprised if any thorough review of the decision just states it's the right thing to do.

Feel free to doubt all you like. I've been a part of decisions and the right thing to do is very much used as the reason.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I certainly wouldn't call him a role model, but to each their own, I guess?

New Hampshire GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte said during a debate on Monday that she would "absolutely" point to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as a role model for a child.

The first-term senator was asked by a moderator during the NECN debate: "Would you tell them to be like Donald Trump? Would you point to him as a role model?"

"I think that certainly there are many role models that we have, and I believe he can serve as president and so, absolutely. I would do that," she said at the New England College hosted debate in Henniker, New Hampshire.

During Monday's debate, someone off-screen asked Ayotte: "If you think he can serve as president, why won't you endorse him?"

"Because I've had some disagreements with him," she said. "And I've been quite clear about those disagreements. And this is an area where Gov. Hassan has been lockstep with Secretary Clinton. I haven't heard major disagreements that she's had with Secretary Clinton so who's going to step up for the people of New Hampshire?"

When Trump was asked about Ayotte in an August Washington Post interview, he criticized her lack of support and implied she was weak.

"You have a Kelly Ayotte, who doesn't want to talk about Trump, but I'm beating her in the polls by a lot. You tell me. Are these people that should be representing us?" he said. "We need loyal people in this country. We need fighters in this country. We don't need weak people. We have enough of them."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/03/politi...ate/index.html

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by MattyC

You'd think a guy wanting to run for President on a platform of bringing jobs back to the US, this might be an important factor. He keeps saying he'll run government like he runs his businesses. Well...

He is going to outsource the government. Set it up as a series of shell corporations, then somehow just write off the debt. Or maybe get Mexico to pay for it.

[Ducay]

Someone (pro-trump) pointed me to the Scott Adams (Dilbert) blog, which, while I don't agree with everything he says, I think the quote below is a decent enough summary of why many people support Trump in the middle class of America; more of the same is riskier than change (as is generally the case after a 2 term president). For this group of votes, it isn't as much about pro-Trump as it is about not-more-Obama.

Originally Posted by dilbert.com

I don’t think any of us is smart enough to evaluate the relative risk of either candidate. And that’s my point. If you think Trump is the dangerous one, that isn’t supported by his history, his patterns, or the facts. It is literally an illusion created by his opponents.

One thing we can know for sure is dangerous is doing more of the same. Obama has been a successful president in part because the United States was strong enough to take on massive new debt. But that situation can’t last forever. Debt is a good idea until it reaches a point where it is deadly. At the current rate of debt growth, we’re doomed in the long run. That makes the candidate of change the lowest risk, even if you think he might call a few foreign leaders dopey.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Someone (pro-trump) pointed me to the Scott Adams (Dilbert) blog, which, while I don't agree with everything he says, I think the quote below is a decent enough summary of why many people support Trump in the middle class of America; more of the same is riskier than change (as is generally the case after a 2 term president). For this group of votes, it isn't as much about pro-Trump as it is about not-more-Obama.

So more debt is better? That's incredibly stupid

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So more debt is better? That's incredibly stupid

Sigh....he is arguing the opposite. Again, do you read my posts or just jump in to troll?

Argument is Obama has been "successful" because he's been able to massively increase the US debt. Clinton likely couldn't do the same (not that the current levels are supportable) given how high the US debt levels have become under W. Bush and Obama

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Sigh....he is arguing the opposite. Again, do you read my posts or just jump in to troll?

Argument is Obama has been "successful" because he's been able to massively increase the US debt. Clinton likely couldn't do the same (not that the current levels are supportable) given how high the US debt levels have become under W. Bush and Obama

I'm not trolling, I'm pointing out that reasoning is logically false. Trump wants to ramp up spending on pretty much everything, and slash taxes. Estimates of deficits are in the trillions.

I'll say it again, that line of reasoning is is both illogical and stupid

Edit:

It's a very, very bad reason to vote Trump :

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi...-tax-plan/full

http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/donald...-plan-primary/

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/d...eeper-in-debt/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/26/news...ld-trump-debt/

http://www.crfb.org/papers/promises-...-2016-election

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-national-debt

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Sigh....he is arguing the opposite. Again, do you read my posts or just jump in to troll?

Argument is Obama has been "successful" because he's been able to massively increase the US debt. Clinton likely couldn't do the same (not that the current levels are supportable) given how high the US debt levels have become under W. Bush and Obama

Have you seen what the debt levels that non-partisan groups have estimated would occur as a result of Trump's plans compared to Clinton's? One estimate I saw had Trump's plan adding $5.4 trillion while Clinton's would add $200 billion.

[Swift]

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by octothorp

So what do you guys figure the odds are of Wikileaks / Assange / Stone releasing some sort of bombshell in the next couple days? Assange is set to make some major announcement tomorrow (1am our time I think). Stone says in reference to wikileaks that Clinton's campaign will be finished on Wednesday. Certainly a lot of Trump boosters on comment sections seem to be waiting with bated breath. Personally, I think there's a lot of misinterpretation regarding Assange's comments going back to the summer, and Stone is just guilty of wishful thinking while trying to deflect from Trump's awful week.

But we'll see. If no bombshells come out in the next couple days, then they simply aren't coming out; because really if you wait any longer, it may be too late to save Trump's campaign.

Well it was a shocker. A game changer. A moment that will be looked back on as a critical one in the election. Something no one could have ever predicted: Trump supporters are very easy to dupe.

WikiLeaksVerified account ‏@wikileaks 2h2 hours ago
#Assange: Regarding upcoming publications... We hope to be publishing every week for the next 10 weeks. #wikileaks10

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/783235313615405056

Comments are awesome as you'd expect. Generally the reaction is anger from the Trump folks, with some staying hopeful for another miracle to save the orange goblin. I've seen a few wikirolled hashtags so hey at least they can laugh that they've been had. Curiously they still can't figure out that Trump is playing them though.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Where's Leonard Nemoy when you need him.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm not trolling, I'm pointing out that reasoning is logically false. Trump wants to ramp up spending on pretty much everything, and slash taxes. Estimates of deficits are in the trillions.

I'll say it again, that line of reasoning is is both illogical and stupid

Edit:

It's a very, very bad reason to vote Trump

The point being made by Scott Adams wasn't that Trump's plan is better for the national debt, but rather in people's perceptions. If they see the current debt levels as unsustainable, then sticking with the status quo is perceived as risky in people's emotions. The candidate that promises change has the perceptual upper hand in such a case. This overaching reaction is why the incumbent party often loses the White House after a 2 term president.

Perhaps I misquoted in my follow-up, but his point has nothing to do with the actual impact of anyone's proposed plans, but all about emotion and perception. He makes it very clear he has no ability to accurately assess the outcome of policies, proposals, etc, just like every layman voter, but rather, looks at how perception and perceived risk play into people's decision making. His underpinning belief is that human's are not rational and will ignore facts and instead follow their emotions in voting.

A great example is the NDP in Alberta, and to a certain extent, Liberals in Ottawa. People voted with their emotions, not based on specifically which parties policies were best long term. People knew they wanted change and voted for it, even though to many, it made no sense based on policies and now regret it when those policies come to fruition (see: minimum wage battle, carbon tax).

[Senator Clay Davis]

I was really hoping this thread was going to be Dilbert free until after the election when we get to laugh at him. Oh well. By the way Adams is a lifelong Republican, so it's not like he was ever voting for anyone but Trump.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

By the way Adams is a lifelong Republican, so it's not like he was ever voting for anyone but Trump.

Agree, however, that doesn't make a lot of the points and observations he has any less relevant. Sure, some are out to lunch, others are not.

If we completely shut out 50% of the ideas, opinions, and thoughts because "they are republican", then the world is going to become a whole lot more partisan than it already is. The way the media operates nowadays is already making things pretty bad. The whole world is going to end up as 2 or 3 competing echo chambers with no real opportunity for dissenting opinions or beliefs.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Ducay

The point being made by Scott Adams wasn't that Trump's plan is better for the national debt, but rather in people's perceptions. If they see the current debt levels as unsustainable, then sticking with the status quo is perceived as risky in people's emotions. The candidate that promises change has the perceptual upper hand in such a case. This overaching reaction is why the incumbent party often loses the White House after a 2 term president.

Perhaps I misquoted in my follow-up, but his point has nothing to do with the actual impact of anyone's proposed plans, but all about emotion and perception. He makes it very clear he has no ability to accurately assess the outcome of policies, proposals, etc, just like every layman voter, but rather, looks at how perception and perceived risk play into people's decision making. His underpinning belief is that human's are not rational and will ignore facts and instead follow their emotions in voting.

A great example is the NDP in Alberta, and to a certain extent, Liberals in Ottawa. People voted with their emotions, not based on specifically which parties policies were best long term. People knew they wanted change and voted for it, even though to many, it made no sense based on policies and now regret it when those policies come to fruition (see: minimum wage battle, carbon tax).

I agree with the point you are making. And I think its the very reason that Trump voters get piled on all the time. The implication is that people are going to vote for Trump based on feeling and perception and not fact. And I think that's what just about all of us agree on. If anything, that is what the republican party and Trump should be given credit for. Being able to stay on message no matter how absurd the message is. I often drop in these threads with small tidbits of things I hear from here in red 'murica. And they pretty much always revolve around those talking point type things. Rarely are they rooted in any substance or fact.

But lots of Americans (and seemingly everyone I interact with here in Okie land) have convinced themselves that Hilary is a very bad candidate and that Trump is the breath of fresh air that this country needs. It just leaves me speechless as I see Trump as the epitome of what is wrong with the country and Clinton as someone that while flawed has at least tried to make the country a better place over the last several decades.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Agree, however, that doesn't make a lot of the points and observations he has any less relevant. Sure, some are out to lunch, others are not.

If we completely shut out 50% of the ideas, opinions, and thoughts because "they are republican", then the world is going to become a whole lot more partisan than it already is. The way the media operates nowadays is already making things pretty bad. The whole world is going to end up as 2 or 3 competing echo chambers with no real opportunity for dissenting opinions or beliefs.

His theory's have no basis. The much more compelling case for Trumps is based on Authoritarianism which boils down to when people are scared they want a strongman to lead them.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Slate article posted a few days ago on Adams did a pretty good job summing him up. I think in a lot of ways he's somewhat jealous of Trump, and of course he thinks he could run for President and win. He has a massive ego, but he's in awe of Trump's even bigger ego, plus he seems to love a good grift as he was a Herman Cain supporter in 2012. Mostly he's just an asshat and I wish we wouldn't pay him any attention. He's not smarter than any other pundit.

[AltaGuy]

Yeah, I don't know why Adams comes up so much - I read his commentary and just think to myself: "so...?"

Several times he's started (or finished) with "we're just not smart enough to understand/evaluate..." - clearly a sign that we're supposed to put our thinking hats away before reading whatever drivel he comes out with.

[Ducay]

I would disagree with the above; Adams hasn't really supported Trump from the start, but rather, theorized on why Trump's tactics of perception, emotion and, effectively, sales, would lead him to be successful in the primary (which ended up being bang on), and ultimately the generals. Of course he has a big ego, he's been successful in life so far and has now been given a massive audience through this campaign.

So far, his theories in these areas have proven to be quite accurate, given Trump's success defies most conventional logic and expectations. It isn't about facts, policies, or scandals (I mean the man insulted John McCain and POWs in his first month campaigning), but rather how you manage voters emotions.

Once you stop looking at it through the lens of facts and policies, and more through emotions, the results to date start to make a whole lot more sense.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Yeah, I don't know why Adams comes up so much - I read his commentary and just think to myself: "so...?"

Several times he's started (or finished) with "we're just not smart enough to understand/evaluate..." - clearly a sign that we're supposed to put our thinking hats away before reading whatever drivel he comes out with.

Same reason Scott Baio gets so much screen time; he's the closest thing to a known celebrity endorsing Trump.

EDIT: Before Ducay/Buster come in and fall over themselves to correct me that Adams has been praising Trump for being a "top-level puppetmaster" or something and totally wasn't endorsing him originally, get bent. Adams has been on that dick for almost a year, regardless of how he couched the language.