What happens if Clinton scandal is real?

[Squatch347]

Drafting Biden sounds pretty zany. Biden is not going to generate the least bit of excitement. He's "Oh ya that guy, he's nice enough I suppose. Heard he was good at embarrassing himself."

You say that, but look at the RNC, they've turned against a sitting Senator and embraced a big government, failed businessman turned reality business star that supports abortion, gun control and the seizure of private property by the government.

The establishment of each party is not always completely ideological in its decision making. What's more, Biden is a pretty powerful player in that group and has made some subtle indications he is considering it. http://www.examiner.com/article/draf...-investigation

It's actually a far, far more plausible reality on the D side than the R because of their odd (imo) primary system with super delegates. That Sec. Clinton left NH with the same number of delegates as Sen. Sanders is an odd outcome.

And just for some fun:

Bloomberg might have some appeal, I'd certainly have to give him some consideration and I'm a sucker for third party candidates. That said, Bloomberg would win based on the folks Bernie and Trump marginalize in the middle and among more sober older voters. I think you are right that Bernie candidacy makes Bloomberg a bit more likely, the only thing is, he's got to make that decision before it's clear who wins the primary if he wants to get his apparatus up and running.

That's a great point. He has to, if I read correctly, start the process Mar 1. That would at least let him see if Sec. Clinton's SC backstop is holding any water (I'm going to guess no), and if Cruz can upset Trump in SC (making a Cruz candidacy at least feasible).

If Sanders does upset Clinton (likely) and Trump holds on (I really, really hope unlikely) I think Bloomberg starts to ask himself "what states could I win that those two wouldn't? I don't think there are any if Either Clinton or Cruz stay alive to be honest, but with a Trump/Sanders race there are a lot of disaffected Conservatives and blue collar Democrats that will be looking for a new home.

[Sigfried]

You say that, but look at the RNC, they've turned against a sitting Senator and embraced a big government, failed businessman turned reality business star that supports abortion, gun control and the seizure of private property by the government.

I hadn't noticed the RNC rallying behind Trump in any real way. They generally seem to despise and fear him from what I can tell. Its the voters, or a cut of them, that are driving the Trump game.

The establishment of each party is not always completely ideological in its decision making. What's more, Biden is a pretty powerful player in that group and has made some subtle indications he is considering it. http://www.examiner.com/article/draf...-investigation

But Biden has 0 chance to win an election. If Hillary can't get the job done, there's no way Biden can. And generally they like Sanders, he's just not their choice. They also know their would be a massive revolt in the party if Bernie was tracking for a win and they did their best to spoil it with Biden, heck Biden, from what I can tell of him would have no part in that kind of play.

It's actually a far, far more plausible reality on the D side than the R because of their odd (imo) primary system with super delegates. That Sec. Clinton left NH with the same number of delegates as Sen. Sanders is an odd outcome.

Not really that odd if you know the system. NH and Iowa are not really about delegate counts, they are about testing the electability and campaign organizations of the candidates. The delegate counts in these states are small. Super delegates are a thing, and they could throw the nomination, but as of yet they have never done so. Again, there would be riots among democrats if they did.

If Sanders does upset Clinton (likely) and Trump holds on (I really, really hope unlikely) I think Bloomberg starts to ask himself "what states could I win that those two wouldn't? I don't think there are any if Either Clinton or Cruz stay alive to be honest, but with a Trump/Sanders race there are a lot of disaffected Conservatives and blue collar Democrats that will be looking for a new home.

Trump vs Sanders would be a crazy race, my heart of heart yearns for this madness! Oh the debates, the media circus! It does leave some very large and fertile middle ground. Funny thing is Trump would really be a middle ground guy once. I'm pretty sure he has no real political principles what so ever and is simply tailoring his message for a certain demographic. Bernie tailors too, he's not a political rube, but I think his message lies mostly with genuine convictions. Not that any of that really matters in an election.

I'd still give Hillary the edge, but I think Sanders has a real fighting chance here. Trump certainly seems like he is doing what you need to do to win, it kind of boggles my mind but on paper he's looking like a winner and considering the criticism he has faced so far, what the heck could upset his image? Nothing I can think of.

[Squatch347]

I hadn't noticed the RNC rallying behind Trump in any real way. They generally seem to despise and fear him from what I can tell. Its the voters, or a cut of them, that are driving the Trump game.

Certainly no doubt there is something like 30% of the primary electorate that is driving the electoral success (the make up of which I personally find pretty interesting given its bi-partisan nature). But the establishment itself made a pretty clear decision in Iowa to attack Cruz via their Pacs in a way that supported Trump. The RNC's Pacs, for example, have begun hashing out the same messaging in SC as Trump's campaign is hashing out.

This isn't to say that he is their favorite, I think Rubio wins that prize, but given the (if we are honest) three way nature of this race, they would prefer a (frankly) naive and manipulatable Trump over a Cruz.

But Biden has 0 chance to win an election. If Hillary can't get the job done, there's no way Biden can.

That is an interesting view. Why do you think that is the case? There are certainly some skeleton's in Biden's closet, but his favorability dwarf's Sec. Clinton. Biden generally polls -3, Clinton is in the -10s on good days (side note: only Trump regularly polls lower). Her top associative word clouds are "criminal" and "liar." Biden is, especially with a stint of going dark, probably not as negatively viewed.

What about him makes him less electable than her?

And generally they like Sanders, he's just not their choice. They also know their would be a massive revolt in the party if Bernie was tracking for a win and they did their best to spoil it with Biden, heck Biden, from what I can tell of him would have no part in that kind of play.

That might still happen with Clinton and the super delegates, right?

What do you mean when you say "what you can tell of him?" My impression (and maybe it is part of living in this area) is that everyone sees Biden as the ultimate power seeker. That he is willing to do pretty much anything and backstab anyone to get the next position. Is that not the feeling about him in your sphere?

Not really that odd if you know the system. NH and Iowa are not really about delegate counts, they are about testing the electability and campaign organizations of the candidates. The delegate counts in these states are small. Super delegates are a thing, and they could throw the nomination, but as of yet they have never done so. Again, there would be riots among democrats if they did.

Sorry, didn't mean odd in the sense of unexpected, more odd in the sense that they don't generally jive with how I picture progressive values.

They definitely have a limited influence though, I think they could only tip the nomination up to the 59% Sanders point. Anything beyond that and he wins regardless. But to return to the point I was making, anything beyond a pretty convincing Sanders win and we have a pretty interesting Democrat convention, especially with the super delegates involved. Both parties are at that point a bit where a brokering of a convention or a candidate might be preferable (in the minds of the leaders) to an undesirable candidate.

It really depends, and this is something I don't have a good sense of, if they think Sanders' avowed socialism is really an election loser. On the R side, I think there is a pretty good sense that absent a Sanders nomination, Trump would lose something like 45 states. If the DNC felt the same way about Sanders, I wouldn't be overly surprised to see them intervene.

The other difference is that Trump voters aren't necessarily Republican voters. So they aren't really alienating a huge swath of people they wouldn't be getting back in other areas. Something like 20%-45% of Trump voters register Democrat for example. That isn't really the case on the D side. Especially given Sanders' messaging. They alienate that group and it is gone.

Trump vs Sanders would be a crazy race, my heart of heart yearns for this madness! Oh the debates, the media circus! It does leave some very large and fertile middle ground. Funny thing is Trump would really be a middle ground guy once. I'm pretty sure he has no real political principles what so ever and is simply tailoring his message for a certain demographic. Bernie tailors too, he's not a political rube, but I think his message lies mostly with genuine convictions. Not that any of that really matters in an election.

I'd still give Hillary the edge, but I think Sanders has a real fighting chance here. Trump certainly seems like he is doing what you need to do to win, it kind of boggles my mind but on paper he's looking like a winner and considering the criticism he has faced so far, what the heck could upset his image? Nothing I can think of.

Yeah, absolutely nothing I disagree with in this section. Except the yearning for it, I really see it, not be overly dramatic, as the death of a Republic. When we look historically at nations we see this happen a lot. The rise of a populist and a socialist at the same time. Countries generally do very, very poorly after that.

Regardless, I think you are right that Trump has no convictions and hence could play to any crowd. The issue is that he has. So there are clips of him saying all kinds of outrageous stuff that will turn off most of the electorate. His 30% is his, 100% his, no matter what. Even he joked and said he could kill a guy and they would love him. Part of me thinks he is just doing this as an elaborate troll since he seems to up his statements every couple of weeks to see if something will finally kill him off.

At the debates this weekend he came out as a Michael Moore -esque "Bush lied, people died" supporter. He blamed 9/11 on Bush and his publicity director came out as a Truther. How does that not scuttle a GOP nomination? I don't know.


I hate to say it and don't take this too literally, but he is our Obama in a way. He is a cult of personality that has a following and no comments or inconveniences will be permitted into the intellectual world of his supporters. Now, that said, President Obama is infinitely more civil than Trump, and he is different in that everyone knew he was a 1920s era Progressive. Trump is whatever Trump wants to be, call him a Third Way candidate, there is another name for that, but I can't remember it... In that sense Mr. Obama ran both on a cult of personality and a more or less defined policy position, while Trump is running on just the former. And perhaps it is encouraging to say that while Obama won, Trump's lack of the latter may cause him to lose, just not lose bad enough for my taste.

[Sigfried]

Certainly no doubt there is something like 30% of the primary electorate that is driving the electoral success (the make up of which I personally find pretty interesting given its bi-partisan nature). But the establishment itself made a pretty clear decision in Iowa to attack Cruz via their Pacs in a way that supported Trump. The RNC's Pacs, for example, have begun hashing out the same messaging in SC as Trump's campaign is hashing out.

Ahh, its true they dislike Cruz worse than trump in many ways because Cruz has rebelled against their leadership more than once making trouble for them. Trump is just a crazy interloper. I'd think the insiders would have wanted Bush but that just isn't happening so far. (A surprise to many I think though after seeing him, I kind of understand.)

That is an interesting view. Why do you think that is the case? There are certainly some skeleton's in Biden's closet, but his favorability dwarf's Sec. Clinton. Biden generally polls -3, Clinton is in the -10s on good days (side note: only Trump regularly polls lower). Her top associative word clouds are "criminal" and "liar." Biden is, especially with a stint of going dark, probably not as negatively viewed.

What about him makes him less electable than her?

Foremost he's boring in a year when boring is getting no one any votes so far. Clinton is a lightning rod of controversy, a tough inside politician and a woman. Bernie is way left and has a rep for an honest grass roots populist. Trump is ****ing insane and winning. Cruz is a far right rebel in his own party and plenty loud about it. All the boring candidates can barely muster single digits in most places. Biden is boring even besides many of them. Old white affable guy.

Also, he's famous/infamous for saying stupid damning things on the campaign trail, things that emphasize he's from an older generation and badly out of touch with anything but country club culture. He's neither seen as strong nor clever. I'd say folks like him for being nice and humble. Not qualities at the top of the presidential personality list.

That might still happen with Clinton and the super delegates, right?

It could, and in a way that is what they are for, I would be surprised if they swung an election though. Not shocked, just surprised.

What do you mean when you say "what you can tell of him?" My impression (and maybe it is part of living in this area) is that everyone sees Biden as the ultimate power seeker. That he is willing to do pretty much anything and backstab anyone to get the next position. Is that not the feeling about him in your sphere?

Is he local to your area? I know little about him before he was VP/Candidate. I think his national image is mostly of an affable, somewhat goofy national grandfather who reminds you occasionally to use better manners and be nice to others.

Sorry, didn't mean odd in the sense of unexpected, more odd in the sense that they don't generally jive with how I picture progressive values.

Got it. Agreed, does't fit the usual profile. I forget when exactly they started that but they had some really weak candidate from the popular vote and felt they should have some mechanism to counteract it a bit by giving leadership a steering mechanism.

They definitely have a limited influence though, I think they could only tip the nomination up to the 59% Sanders point. Anything beyond that and he wins regardless. But to return to the point I was making, anything beyond a pretty convincing Sanders win and we have a pretty interesting Democrat convention, especially with the super delegates involved. Both parties are at that point a bit where a brokering of a convention or a candidate might be preferable (in the minds of the leaders) to an undesirable candidate.

True, he doesn't win ties here, that's for sure, he's got to have a pretty hefty mandate from his supporters both to overcome the leaderships preference and to make the case he has the groundswell needed to win in the general.

It really depends, and this is something I don't have a good sense of, if they think Sanders' avowed socialism is really an election loser. On the R side, I think there is a pretty good sense that absent a Sanders nomination, Trump would lose something like 45 states. If the DNC felt the same way about Sanders, I wouldn't be overly surprised to see them intervene.

It's a curious case the whole Socialism thing. To the right, the dems are all socialists anyhow, Bernie just admits it. But in truth of course he's not a real socialist, just a sort of grand progressive. With only a few exceptions he's not talking about nationalizing capitalist industries (other than healthcare). We need a new and modern word for this. It's the western socialism of our era, democratic socialism, but its not really socialism by any textbook description.

Anyway, I think the thing of it is, more and more Americans don't fear the S word any more and simply see these kinds of policies as social modernism. You take care of people in your society so no one has to suffer from a lack of the basics of living. Food, shelter, and medicine.

The other difference is that Trump voters aren't necessarily Republican voters. So they aren't really alienating a huge swath of people they wouldn't be getting back in other areas. Something like 20%-45% of Trump voters register Democrat for example. That isn't really the case on the D side. Especially given Sanders' messaging. They alienate that group and it is gone.

Sanders also pulls a lot of support from outside the party. I think party wise its about an even split or a bit favoring Hillary. Bernie has a lot of young a-political types in his groundswell. Trumps democrats are apparently the sort that usually vote republican, and they are largely in the south, aka these are the democrats of the pre-civil rights era or at least that is my reading of it.

Yeah, absolutely nothing I disagree with in this section. Except the yearning for it, I really see it, not be overly dramatic, as the death of a Republic. When we look historically at nations we see this happen a lot. The rise of a populist and a socialist at the same time. Countries generally do very, very poorly after that.

I don't know, America has had its share of both (If we mean socialist as in progressives). We've actually done really well after that a couple of times (see socialist Roosevelt and populist Jackson) Not at the same time true... Besides, I tend to feel these days every moment in history is unique and predictions of the present always following old patterns tend to fail.

That said, we could be in for hard times, we have some fundamental weaknesses in our economy and the military monster that must always be fed. Then again we tend to find a way, especially in this modern age of making things work out.

At the debates this weekend he came out as a Michael Moore -esque "Bush lied, people died" supporter. He blamed 9/11 on Bush and his publicity director came out as a Truther. How does that not scuttle a GOP nomination? I don't know.

Saw that and was surprised. Makes sense though and pretty much is how I felt about it. Well, not that Bush caused 9/11 or is truly to blame, but as the president he was responsible and he did have chances to do more about security and didn't so he's a legit target for hindsight. And I agree with Trump that Iraq all in all was a bad move and a waste of too many American lives. Still, it really doesn't matter because George is not running for president, its just an issue they can all posture on in one way or another.

I hate to say it and don't take this too literally, but he is our Obama in a way.

Sadness.... so different.... but yes I see your points. Obama certainly did win on some charisma and personality... though is Trump charismatic exactly? I guess so, doesn't appeal to me at all personality wise and he's pretty goofy looking as where Obama's kind of a stud if you like em lanky as some ladies do. For me, Obama was about two things: Black president, and Pragmatic policy. No really, the thing I really liked about Obama was he had similar moral viewpoints to myself, but also advocated pragmatic approaches to policy. A lot of things he said, were the same thing's I'd say on a topic if I had to say them to a national audience. Really if I had to characterize Obama today I'd say he was a classy, honest, and wise policy geek. A technician style politician with a lot of personal charisma but a geek at heart.

Trump to me is a cynical blowhard egomaniac who is running simply because he wants to be president and confirm that he is the greatest man who ever lived. Strangely, I suspect he could actually make for a very effective president in some respects. Though he could also be an utter disaster. Mind you Bernie I think would be an ineffective president, but much less potential as a big disaster. Both I think would be followed by a political swing back after their presidency.

Hillary as president... I don't know, probably fine, business as usual, same goes for most of the rest of the GOP field. Cruz more like Bernie, he'd over reach and grind to a standstill.

Still, history tells us most presidents are shaped by how they react to what we don't see coming more than what they intend to do when they get into office.

[Squatch347]

Ahh, its true they dislike Cruz worse than trump in many ways because Cruz has rebelled against their leadership more than once making trouble for them. Trump is just a crazy interloper. I'd think the insiders would have wanted Bush but that just isn't happening so far. (A surprise to many I think though after seeing him, I kind of understand.)

Yeah, he doesn't really want it, I think.

What is interesting, and where I probably come the closest to sympathy with the Trump people oddly enough is that I think the party elite would rather have a Trump (who will probably lose 45 states) to a Cruz who might win (he more or less beats Clinton head to head). That seems like they are selling out the party in this election so they can move onto the next one. That kind of feeling is pretty widespread among the base and I think it is a problem for the party.

Foremost he's boring in a year when boring is getting no one any votes so far.

Ole' Joe is boring? ;-) His gaffes and comments seem to make great headlines and, like Trump, don't seem to stick.

You do make a good point about him not being an outsider, which does seem to be the wave, from both sides.

Is he local to your area? I know little about him before he was VP/Candidate. I think his national image is mostly of an affable, somewhat goofy national grandfather who reminds you occasionally to use better manners and be nice to others.

Well DC. Its hard to overemphasize how much politics is everywhere here, its like pro-football.

That is a very different view of Biden than even the more liberal friends I have here have of him, probably does seem regional. He is absolutely not the affable, goofy grandfather in the view here. He is unbelievably ruthless, has a heck of a temper, and is a profligate liar as we understand him. I've heard staffers say he is untrustworthy by DC standards, which I think says something.

Got it. Agreed, does't fit the usual profile. I forget when exactly they started that but they had some really weak candidate from the popular vote and felt they should have some mechanism to counteract it a bit by giving leadership a steering mechanism.

Yeah, you are absolutely correct. I think it was McGovern maybe?

I think there is a relatively small chance of it really making much of a difference here, but heck, it would be interesting if the system took the election from Sanders after he spent his entire time talking on the trail about how the system is unfair.

It's a curious case the whole Socialism thing. To the right, the dems are all socialists anyhow, Bernie just admits it. But in truth of course he's not a real socialist, just a sort of grand progressive. With only a few exceptions he's not talking about nationalizing capitalist industries (other than healthcare). We need a new and modern word for this. It's the western socialism of our era, democratic socialism, but its not really socialism by any textbook description.

I think you are definitely correct here. Sanders is definitely not proposing government ownership of the means of production. What he is proposing (and when we get any details from Trump, what he is proposing) is something more akin to national socialism. Wait, wait, don't roll your eyes just yet. I don't, of course, mean nazism (Trump is probably closer to that mark than Sanders), I mean something more akin to Mussolini or the 1920s Progressives in the US. He is proposing a strong central state, an economic system that includes the community as a stakeholder, a punishment or abolishment of unearned income, strong environmental and commons protections, etc. Essentially the remodeling of the economy around a planned version of the community rather than as a self-organizing set of individuals.

Anyway, I think the thing of it is, more and more Americans don't fear the S word any more and simply see these kinds of policies as social modernism. You take care of people in your society so no one has to suffer from a lack of the basics of living. Food, shelter, and medicine.

I think this is about 50% correct. The part I think you are missing is that I don't think those on the Progressive left necessarily think "we need to take care of people in our society" they think "the society needs to take care of people who need it." That might seem like a fine distinction, but it is the reason you see charity in Europe essentially extinct, even to the point where Europeans are far less likely than they were a generation ago to respond to someone calling for help, but Americans haven't changed that much on the same scale. There is a sense of "outsourcing" imo that happens when you adopt this philosophy.

Anyway, probably out of scope here.

Sanders also pulls a lot of support from outside the party. I think party wise its about an even split or a bit favoring Hillary. Bernie has a lot of young a-political types in his groundswell. Trumps democrats are apparently the sort that usually vote republican, and they are largely in the south, aka these are the democrats of the pre-civil rights era or at least that is my reading of it.

Not exactly I think. Sanders tends to "increase the pie" drawing in lots of young, white, upper or middle class people who wouldn't necessarily vote. Trump has some of that as well, but a much larger group (that 20-45% range) comes from white, uneducated people who not only identify as democrat, but historically vote as democrat. That support also comes primarily from the rust belt rather than the south. He pulls most of that population from states surrounding the south. These are generally people in their 40s and 50s as well so I doubt they are "pre-civil rights" era democrats.

Interestingly, in the south when he does pull those who have voted D in the past it is almost exclusively Blacks. I honestly have no explanation of that outside the persona draw. He does much better with blacks than any other candidate, in the south even better than Carson.

Besides, I tend to feel these days every moment in history is unique and predictions of the present always following old patterns tend to fail.

Could be, but I think my feeling on this is that it isn't just a similar historical trend, but rather more of a mechanism (and Jackson barely counts because he had no economic control). When populism starts to set in you see cults of personality override policy. I think, personally, that Pres. Obama rode a bit of that. It is undeniable imo that Trump is far further on that spectrum. When it is only about personality, and not about policy, elections are about "trust" in "your guy" and, as a friend pointed out, Trump is essentially playing the democrat identity politics game with white people, and doing it pretty well.

I don't think that kind of cult can exist in a rule of law type republic. The latter is more about policy and law and how we operate than about people. Anyway, I'll get out of my Plato's Republic monologue.

Saw that and was surprised. Makes sense though and pretty much is how I felt about it. Well, not that Bush caused 9/11 or is truly to blame, but as the president he was responsible and he did have chances to do more about security and didn't so he's a legit target for hindsight. And I agree with Trump that Iraq all in all was a bad move and a waste of too many American lives. Still, it really doesn't matter because George is not running for president, its just an issue they can all posture on in one way or another.

And without rehasing that debate, it is certainly a progressive position, right? Odd for the GOP forerunner not to take a hit from essentially repeating the Mother Jones/Code Pink talking points.

What's weirder, imo, but telling is that his communications head tweeted a few hours latter a couple of tweets that shows that both her and he are Truthers.

Again, I just don't really get it.

Sadness.... so different.... but yes I see your points. Obama certainly did win on some charisma and personality... though is Trump charismatic exactly? I guess so, doesn't appeal to me at all personality wise and he's pretty goofy looking as where Obama's kind of a stud if you like em lanky as some ladies do. For me, Obama was about two things: Black president, and Pragmatic policy. No really, the thing I really liked about Obama was he had similar moral viewpoints to myself, but also advocated pragmatic approaches to policy. A lot of things he said, were the same thing's I'd say on a topic if I had to say them to a national audience. Really if I had to characterize Obama today I'd say he was a classy, honest, and wise policy geek. A technician style politician with a lot of personal charisma but a geek at heart.

Trump to me is a cynical blowhard egomaniac who is running simply because he wants to be president and confirm that he is the greatest man who ever lived. Strangely, I suspect he could actually make for a very effective president in some respects. Though he could also be an utter disaster. Mind you Bernie I think would be an ineffective president, but much less potential as a big disaster. Both I think would be followed by a political swing back after their presidency.

Yeah, there is quite a bit to cover, most of it outside the scope of this thread, so I won't. Sufficed to say, I think I've been watching a different TV show than you, I must be thinking of a different character. He hasn't really ever seemed pragmatic, but ideological to me. Definitely in pretty good shape though. I definitely didn't see him as a policy nerd given how poorly his policies have been put together and how poorly he has fared in the courts.

Regardless, that's my take we don't need to debate it.

I was completely with you on the first sentence of your Trump analysis. I don't think there is any chance at all he will be effective. Presidents aren't executives and, by all accounts, Trump is a horrifically bad executive. It isn't about leadership, its about managing a team and he doesn't do that well. Especially given his complaints lately about fairness. TBH, I still think there is a chance he gets bored and wanders away.

[eye4magic]

Trump to me is a cynical blowhard egomaniac who is running simply because he wants to be president and confirm that he is the greatest man who ever lived.

That’s probably beside the point. He’s run before and his cynical blowhard egonmaniac patterns never received this type of response from voters. I think he’s running in response to some type of void our culture has created over the last decade. Voids can be dangerous because they are usually up for grabs as to who or what fills them. And what fills them is not necessarily based on factors that are beneficial to society as a whole.

[Ibelsd]

That’s probably beside the point. He’s run before and his cynical blowhard egonmaniac patterns never received this type of response from voters. I think he’s running in response to some type of void our culture has created over the last decade. Voids can be dangerous because they are usually up for grabs as to who or what fills them. And what fills them is not necessarily based on factors that are beneficial to society as a whole.

I find Trump to be the most Reaganesque Republican who has run since Ronnie Ray-Gun himself.


"Ronald Reagan is a triumph of the embalmer's art."
Author: Gore Vidal

. "Reagan won because he ran against Jimmy Carter. If he ran unopposed he would have lost."
Author: Mort Sahl

. "I was a Reagan backer. It was a shock for some people that I could agree with anything that man would say."
Author: Neil Young

. "I don't expect you'll hear me writing any poems to the greater glory of Ronald and Nancy Reagan."
Author: Robert Penn Warren

. "I believe Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was... a large Arctic region covered with ice."
Author: Robin Williams

. "Ronald Reagan is clearly to television what Franklin Roosevelt was to radio."
Author: David Gergen

. "Often dismissed or underestimated by political opponents, President Reagan had the most valuable weapon in the political arsenal: a bond with the people."
Author: William L. Jenkins

I cherry-picked these quotes as a reminder of what Reagan was, in his own time. He was not universally loved, even by Republicans. He was an entertainer. His t.v. presence was, dare I say, Trump like. He was a cowboy. Considered too wild and reckless to be President. He also had support from unlikely places (i.e. Neil Young). He was mocked for his use of stage makeup. He was an actor. An ex-Democrat. Now, I am not saying Trump is Reagan part deaux. However, this is this very interesting overlap in terms of personality and presence. Even their messages have similarities. Optimistic. Challenging. Not overly subtle.

It is a bit silly to claim to be inside someone's head and proclaim they only want the Presidency for their own self-vanity. I cannot think of a Presidential candidate who wasn't vain and ego maniacal. It really is part of the package. I am, though, wavering on this thin line where I wonder if Trump will topple into Ross Perot-ville or will he rise towards Reagan-town. He has a very similar advantage as Reagan. His opponent is just not very popular or well liked. People want a reason to not vote for Hillary and if Trump can give them just an inkling, she is finished. Just look what a nutjob like Sanders has done to her. Let's make no mistake either, Sanders is an absolute mess. This guy would go down as the biggest liberal/socialist to have ever run this country. His platform is akin to the Green Party platform. He is this old crazy white guy who rallies the ultra-liberal and has gone from a side-show to major headache for Hillary. And really, I think it points to Hillary's weakness more than any strength from Bernie. However, let's not fool ourselves. The DNC is in the bag for Hillary and won't let Bernie win.

Trump's candidacy just cannot be dismissed as a joke.

[Boris]

In reply to the post above:

I agree that Trump's candidacy is not a joke, and I have also noticed the parallels to Reagan. In particular, I remember during the 1980 campaign many people were saying that Reagan could never win because he is "just an actor". Now many are trying to dismiss Trump as "an entertainer". Both Reagan and Trump have a way of projecting strength and that has strong appeal to a certain segment of the electorate. However, it remains to be seen whether demographic changes in the past 35 years will make it much more difficult for Trump in the general election than it was for Reagan.

I agree that Bernie has virtually no chance of beating Hillary. But I think Hillary would be a very difficult match-up for Trump. Hillary is very strong with women and minorities, and Trump has serious weaknesses with these groups. Unfortunately for Trump, these groups represent a large majority of the electorate, so the math is decidedly against him. Trump is going to have to pivot in a major way for the general election, and he may have already dug too deep a hole with those groups.

For Hillary, what is a negative for her in the Democratic primary, that she is too moderate, will likely become a positive in the general election.

It is true that Hillary has a likability problem. But while she has a high unfavorability rating with all Americans, at 51%, Trump's rating is much higher, at 60% (according to recent Gallup polls). Ultimately, I think the Republicans would be better positioned in the general election with Rubio, but it doesn't look like that is going to happen.

[Sigfried]

That’s probably beside the point. He’s run before and his cynical blowhard egonmaniac patterns never received this type of response from voters. I think he’s running in response to some type of void our culture has created over the last decade. Voids can be dangerous because they are usually up for grabs as to who or what fills them. And what fills them is not necessarily based on factors that are beneficial to society as a whole.

True. I don't even know if Trump is "dangerous" in any significant way. I doubt I'd much like his foreign policy but presidents only have so much power. The movement behind him might be dangerous however, the sort that could push us into wars that will get more people killed for no good reason. I'm sure he'd take some things in directions I'd detest, but they are unlikely to pose any real danger to me or most Americans. There is forever talk of one candidate or another destroying the country, pretty much never happens. About the only one that did was the one we tend to hail as the greatest of all time, Lincoln. And in my estimation he didn't do the destroying, that was more something a long time coming and he was a tipping point.

To me, its looking a lot like Trump will win on the GOP side. Could change, probably won't. It's odd for me since among any circle I'm in I've only known perhaps one or two actual Trump supporters. Then again I never met anyone who liked Justin Beeber either and those things probably don't even cross over.

Clinton is hanging in there, but that game is still up in the air. Sanders forces are fired up and running hard, its uphill but I think its still possible we could have an upset there. Fun to watch.

---------- Post added February 25th, 2016 at 12:03 AM ---------- Previous post was February 24th, 2016 at 11:42 PM ----------

Interestingly, in the south when he does pull those who have voted D in the past it is almost exclusively Blacks. I honestly have no explanation of that outside the persona draw. He does much better with blacks than any other candidate, in the south even better than Carson.

I'm in Nevada at the moment visiting Death Valley so I got to see some of the GOP commercials here for an evening right before the vote while watching bedtime TV. Trump had a spot with a black man endorsing him. The context was the man's son was shot by an Illegal Immigrant and Trump promises to kick all of them out of the US. Thus Turmp is the only candidate that could prevent his Son's death. There is economic and social conflict among Blacks and Latino immigrants that he may be tapping into. Also there are always folks that simply like the idea of success of all races, Trump certainly taps into that.

One thing the democrats tend to be bad at is saying "Your life will be better with us in charge"; unless you are an oppressed minority, that they can do. The republicans that do well tend to say "Hey I can pave the way for you to get rich." and who doesn't want that? Mind you someone like Sanders... if enough folks in our society are poor enough, he is promising relative wealth to a lot of folks who are not especially oppressed, just hard up.

I think just about any good candidate needs some kind of message about how life is going to get better, and ideally it isn't just aimed at one group's idea of better. That's why "the economy stupid" is generally a good bet, though if folks really believe only the rich benefit from economic boom times, then that really undermines the pure economy push.

[Ibelsd]

True. I don't even know if Trump is "dangerous" in any significant way. I doubt I'd much like his foreign policy but presidents only have so much power. The movement behind him might be dangerous however, the sort that could push us into wars that will get more people killed for no good reason. I'm sure he'd take some things in directions I'd detest, but they are unlikely to pose any real danger to me or most Americans. There is forever talk of one candidate or another destroying the country, pretty much never happens. About the only one that did was the one we tend to hail as the greatest of all time, Lincoln. And in my estimation he didn't do the destroying, that was more something a long time coming and he was a tipping point.

To me, its looking a lot like Trump will win on the GOP side. Could change, probably won't. It's odd for me since among any circle I'm in I've only known perhaps one or two actual Trump supporters. Then again I never met anyone who liked Justin Beeber either and those things probably don't even cross over.

Clinton is hanging in there, but that game is still up in the air. Sanders forces are fired up and running hard, its uphill but I think its still possible we could have an upset there. Fun to watch.

Dangerous.... Come on. Just making the insinuation is over-the-top. His foreign policy, to me, sounds like he's going to make a series of business deals. He is not really very hawkish. Hillary may be more hawkish than Trump.

Look at his real focus.
1) Fixing the tax code and attempting to grow jobs in the economy.
2) Fixing the immigration problem by deporting those here illegally and strengthening our ability to keep them out.

Frankly, I don't even think foreign policy is his focus other than correcting trade imbalances.

So, people against Trump, what are they really against? In my mind, it is anyone but Hillary. We don't need another four years of constant scandals that seems to follow the Clintons around like a bad cold. Bill, for all the success the economy had while he was in office, left in a cloud of scandal. The list of scandals swirling around Hillary, right now, is beyond ridiculous. Is it possible to have a President who is not allowed access to top secret information? Do we want to elect a President indicted within the first year of taking office? Even worse, do we want a person escaping indictment because they were able to win the Presidency?

[CowboyX]

Dangerous.... Come on. Just making the insinuation is over-the-top. His foreign policy, to me, sounds like he's going to make a series of business deals. He is not really very hawkish. Hillary may be more hawkish than Trump.

Look at his real focus.
1) Fixing the tax code and attempting to grow jobs in the economy.
2) Fixing the immigration problem by deporting those here illegally and strengthening our ability to keep them out.

Frankly, I don't even think foreign policy is his focus other than correcting trade imbalances.

So, people against Trump, what are they really against? In my mind, it is anyone but Hillary. We don't need another four years of constant scandals that seems to follow the Clintons around like a bad cold. Bill, for all the success the economy had while he was in office, left in a cloud of scandal. The list of scandals swirling around Hillary, right now, is beyond ridiculous. Is it possible to have a President who is not allowed access to top secret information? Do we want to elect a President indicted within the first year of taking office? Even worse, do we want a person escaping indictment because they were able to win the Presidency?

What needs to be fixed in the tax code? What taxes do you pay?

[Sigfried]

Dangerous.... Come on. Just making the insinuation is over-the-top. His foreign policy, to me, sounds like he's going to make a series of business deals. He is not really very hawkish. Hillary may be more hawkish than Trump.

I agree he is not really a hawk, but his constituents are very much hawks and he seems to have no problem pandering to them in the extreme. So far he strikes me as the kind of person that would go to war because it was the expedient thing to do for local politics, its something you see in many places. Stoke the fires of xenophobia and cash in on it. I don't know him well, it might be he just lies to them and then does what he thinks is best, possible, not likely I think.

Look at his real focus.
1) Fixing the tax code and attempting to grow jobs in the economy.
2) Fixing the immigration problem by deporting those here illegally and strengthening our ability to keep them out.

The history of tax cuts and hikes just doesn't jive with the idea that cutting taxes makes jobs or raising it removes jobs. I'm sure at the extremes it has some impact but overall other factors seem much stronger in making and destroying jobs.

I'm also not convinced there is some great immigration crisis. Mind you I'm kind of in the upper tier of the economy much of the time, but I just don't see a lot of Americans fighting for the kinds of jobs most Illegals are doing. low wage jobs are kind of easy to come by, its the well paying ones you can support a family on that are scarce. I''ve just not done enough study on it mind you to say with any confidence.

Frankly, I don't even think foreign policy is his focus other than correcting trade imbalances.

No, but it matters and he's said many times he will take care of Isis through military action. To me that just smacks of more lives and tax money wasted.

So, people against Trump, what are they really against?

Bigotry and crony capitalism. And at a personal level douche bags.

In my mind, it is anyone but Hillary. We don't need another four years of constant scandals that seems to follow the Clintons around like a bad cold. Bill, for all the success the economy had while he was in office, left in a cloud of scandal. The list of scandals swirling around Hillary, right now, is beyond ridiculous.

True, but what exactly are bad about scandals? They don't cost much. No one dies. No one looses any freedoms.

Is it possible to have a President who is not allowed access to top secret information? Do we want to elect a President indicted within the first year of taking office? Even worse, do we want a person escaping indictment because they were able to win the Presidency?

Personally I think there is far too much top secret information in the world. Of course Hillary would likely disagree with that, she strikes me as the type who likes government secrets in the name of national security and the like. She just values her own control over information more than the rules for the government. Really none of what you mention matters nearly as much to me as whether we engage in wars or how we protect civil liberties. I don't like Hillary for those reasons far more than what kinds of scandals she has had.

[Ibelsd]

I agree he is not really a hawk, but his constituents are very much hawks and he seems to have no problem pandering to them in the extreme. So far he strikes me as the kind of person that would go to war because it was the expedient thing to do for local politics, its something you see in many places. Stoke the fires of xenophobia and cash in on it. I don't know him well, it might be he just lies to them and then does what he thinks is best, possible, not likely I think.

People said the same about Reagan. He'd lead us into WWIII. He was a cowboy and he'd a start a nuclear war. Eight years later and the Berlin Wall was broken. I see a lot of hyperbole when people speak of Trump. I am not sure it fits.

The history of tax cuts and hikes just doesn't jive with the idea that cutting taxes makes jobs or raising it removes jobs. I'm sure at the extremes it has some impact but overall other factors seem much stronger in making and destroying jobs.

So, you want higher taxes? I think we both agree that government is pretty well corrupt. So, why encourage any policy which adds more money to something we both agree is corrupt. Even if you don't think lowering taxes will create more jobs, just getting the money out of politicians' hands seems like a worthwhile enough endeavor to me.

I'm also not convinced there is some great immigration crisis. Mind you I'm kind of in the upper tier of the economy much of the time, but I just don't see a lot of Americans fighting for the kinds of jobs most Illegals are doing. low wage jobs are kind of easy to come by, its the well paying ones you can support a family on that are scarce. I''ve just not done enough study on it mind you to say with any confidence.

Sure. Since we do allow illegal immigrants to come here and work here, businesses get to pay wages that only illegal immigrants will accept. Illegal immigration is nothing but corporate welfare. Who pays? The middle class and the poor. Wage suppression at the entry level cascades to lower wages for skilled labor. Put it another way; If a entry level job required $15-$20/hr instead of $10/hr then skilled labor would see an increase in compensation as well. After all, you cannot pay unskilled laborers $20/hr and skilled labor $22-25/hr. The skilled labor would demand more as well. Democrats like to talk about social justice and fair pay, but they advocate policies which work just the opposite. Then, they try to pretend like their bad policies can be overcome by even worse legislation. Well, you wouldn't need the legislation to force a minimum wage if you just removed the causes for the suppressed wages in the first place.

No, but it matters and he's said many times he will take care of Isis through military action. To me that just smacks of more lives and tax money wasted.

He talks tough, but I think history has shown bargains get struck quicker with tough talk than with pacification.

Bigotry and crony capitalism. And at a personal level douche bags.

Pul-lease! Democrats practically invented crony capitalism. In the beginning, it was sort of an open secret. Then, people like Truman would simply be open about it. He used to brag about how he got his people government contracts and believed it was one of the benefits of winning elections. And bigotry? So, if someone says we should deport illegal immigrants, then they are bigoted??? Talk about shutting down a debate by the word police. This is the kind of tired garbage you'd expect from an ideologue. It is not based at all on reason.

True, but what exactly are bad about scandals? They don't cost much. No one dies. No one looses any freedoms.

What is bad about scandals?

When Bill was in office and dealing with the Monica scandal, it was frequently documented by insiders that scandal took the President's attention away from the important matters of state. Bad decisions were made because he had his focus on scandals. As one aide at the time noted,
"The energy of the place wassapped, and top aides squirmed when forced to answer questions about their boss’s sexualadventures” (Baker 35)."
http://pol.illinoisstate.edu/downloa...6/Sarver13.pdf

It should also be noted that lots of people damaged their careers due to a loss of credibility by defending Bill. So, yeah, the potential for loss of life and freedom is there as staff no longer trust their boss or their mission. The same potential exists for Hillary. Should this email issue explode while she is in office, how much of her time and attention will it take from her and her staff? How will it effect morale? Will aides be looking to play things safe in order to save their own reputations? These things take a toll. Ultimately, yes, they may result in loss of life/freedom due to lack of attention to detail. Let's also not pretend the very scandal we are discussing hasn't potentially put people's lives at risk. Her desire to hide information from the public, to control information, led to this scandal. I've often compared her to Nixon and this is exhibit A front and center.

Personally I think there is far too much top secret information in the world. Of course Hillary would likely disagree with that, she strikes me as the type who likes government secrets in the name of national security and the like. She just values her own control over information more than the rules for the government. Really none of what you mention matters nearly as much to me as whether we engage in wars or how we protect civil liberties. I don't like Hillary for those reasons far more than what kinds of scandals she has had.

That's fine. You can have as many opinions as you like. However, opinions aside, what she did was potentially against the law and that is what matters here. Of course, this is just ONE scandal. We have not even begun to broach the money she took from Wall Street, the Clinton Foundation, or the countless other scandals which are engulfing her. You think none of these things will have an impact on a possible Clinton presidency? That is just not real life.

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 PM ----------

What needs to be fixed in the tax code? What taxes do you pay?

I pay a great deal in taxes. I pay city, county, state and federal taxes. I pay property tax. I pay sales tax. I pay taxes to register my car. The question is, for the money I pay in taxes, what do I get in return?

My state government refuses to improve the highways because they'd rather sink money into a train. The political zealots oppose highway construction because they don't want anyone driving... unless it is a government official (they get free cars..). Roads and other infrastructure projects have been put off due to budget issues, but somehow, the state can find the money to provide illegal immigrants with driver's licenses. Our schools are terrible, but there is money to pay teacher pensions and exorbitant rates for administrators. Oh, and somehow we have money for bilingual programs for kids who shouldn't even be here.

The federal government cannot seem to find the money fix the electrical grid, but there is plenty of money for all sorts of pet projects and subsidies.

The truth is, I'm not getting my money's worth for the labor I send to Washington and Sacramento.

How about a fix such that all Americans must pay taxes? All Americans. If you earn an income, then you should pay taxes. How is it that 45% of all Americans pay zero in federal income taxes and then get to vote for policies which demand other people get taxed more? This is not equal representation. The cry at the Boston Tea Party was no taxation without representation. It was not representation without taxation.
https://boxden.com/showthread.php?t=2325094

[Sigfried]

People said the same about Reagan. He'd lead us into WWIII. He was a cowboy and he'd a start a nuclear war. Eight years later and the Berlin Wall was broken. I see a lot of hyperbole when people speak of Trump. I am not sure it fits.

There is a lot of hyperbole surrounding Trump for certain. None the less he generates a good deal of it himself. When he goes on national TV saying you have to kill the family members of terrorists you start to think he's something of a warmonger.

So, you want higher taxes?

I want taxes that pay for what we spend. If that means higher taxes, so be it. I'll pay them. Generally my taxes tend to come out to about 10% of my yearly income, not bad all said and done. I can handle a bit more if it means getting our financial house in order. I'd like to spend a bit less on guns and a bit more on butter if I had my way.

I think we both agree that government is pretty well corrupt. So, why encourage any policy which adds more money to something we both agree is corrupt. Even if you don't think lowering taxes will create more jobs, just getting the money out of politicians' hands seems like a worthwhile enough endeavor to me.

I don't see it as more corrupt than not. It contains corruption, but given the scale of the operation not all that much, no more than in most large corporations or other organizations. Humans are prone to it. Government workers no more or less than others. What makes the corruption noteworthy is that the ideal is none. Compared to a great many countries, our corruption in the modern era is really small. Most of the money the government spends gets spent buying one thing or another. The amount siphoned off or wasted, as a percentage of what it takes in, is I think fairly small. (as a flat value it is large because of how large the total pool is)

Sure. Since we do allow illegal immigrants to come here and work here, businesses get to pay wages that only illegal immigrants will accept. Illegal immigration is nothing but corporate welfare. Who pays? The middle class and the poor. Wage suppression at the entry level cascades to lower wages for skilled labor. Put it another way; If a entry level job required $15-$20/hr instead of $10/hr then skilled labor would see an increase in compensation as well. After all, you cannot pay unskilled laborers $20/hr and skilled labor $22-25/hr. The skilled labor would demand more as well. Democrats like to talk about social justice and fair pay, but they advocate policies which work just the opposite. Then, they try to pretend like their bad policies can be overcome by even worse legislation. Well, you wouldn't need the legislation to force a minimum wage if you just removed the causes for the suppressed wages in the first place.

I did a bit of reading and generally studies on the subject find that while immigration has a downward wage effect for low income workers, it has a positive wage outcome for middle and higher income wage earners as well as for entrepreneurs. This is because the overall economy tends to grow due to the added production and consumption.
Here is a Kato institute article discussing the subject: http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration...ges-employment
This one from the economic policy institute concurs: http://www.epi.org/publication/immigration-facts/

Further what is very clear from comparing wage levels and unemployment levels to immigration is that when pay is high for low skill jobs illegal immigration spikes and when it is poor it slacks off significantly. As economists this is very familiar, equilibrium outs, if you get a hot job market you will get lots of folks trying to get in on it and that will cool it.

He talks tough, but I think history has shown bargains get struck quicker with tough talk than with pacification.

Tough talk I think works out when you say "Do this and here are the consequences" Its not so great when you point at something already happening and say "Stop that or I'll come get you" They already made that calculation and are committed to what they are doing.

Pul-lease! Democrats practically invented crony capitalism.

Capitalism invented crony capitalism. Any good capitalist is going to try and get whatever competitive advantage they can, if that means bribing politicians that is what they will do. Certainly it can go the other way but I strongly suspect its a lot rarer for politicians to solicit for bribes than interested parties to offer them.

And bigotry? So, if someone says we should deport illegal immigrants, then they are bigoted??? Talk about shutting down a debate by the word police. This is the kind of tired garbage you'd expect from an ideologue. It is not based at all on reason.

Trump has had a go at Muslims, Mexicans, Women, and sidestepped easy opportunities to take on the KKK and other open bigots who endorse him. I'm not shutting down debate, I'm saying he is a bigot, panders to bigots, and I really don't like bigots, its as simple as that. Nothing about that stifles your ability to debate and there are no word police working here that I know of so no crying wolf.

When Bill was in office and dealing with the Monica scandal, it was frequently documented by insiders that scandal took the President's attention away from the important matters of state. Bad decisions were made because he had his focus on scandals. As one aide at the time noted,
"The energy of the place wassapped, and top aides squirmed when forced to answer questions about their boss’s sexualadventures” (Baker 35)."
http://pol.illinoisstate.edu/downloa...6/Sarver13.pdf

Did people die? Did we loose important liberties? Did the economy collapse? Nope on all accounts. Politicians are constantly distracted by all kinds of ****, its politics. I don't like scandals but compared to whether we go to war, and weather people have equal protection under the law, I really don't care.

That's fine. You can have as many opinions as you like. However, opinions aside, what she did was potentially against the law and that is what matters here.

So a jaywalker can't be president? Trump has plenty of scandals. Vote for Bernie if you think scandal and corruption are a big problem. His net worth is only about double mine which isn't much, basically his entire wealth is a small house in a large city. He has broken the law though, while protesting injustice and the like. Personally I'm fine with a little law breaking for causes I believe in provided you are not hurting people.

[Ibelsd]

There is a lot of hyperbole surrounding Trump for certain. None the less he generates a good deal of it himself. When he goes on national TV saying you have to kill the family members of terrorists you start to think he's something of a warmonger.



I want taxes that pay for what we spend. If that means higher taxes, so be it. I'll pay them. Generally my taxes tend to come out to about 10% of my yearly income, not bad all said and done. I can handle a bit more if it means getting our financial house in order. I'd like to spend a bit less on guns and a bit more on butter if I had my way.



I don't see it as more corrupt than not. It contains corruption, but given the scale of the operation not all that much, no more than in most large corporations or other organizations. Humans are prone to it. Government workers no more or less than others. What makes the corruption noteworthy is that the ideal is none. Compared to a great many countries, our corruption in the modern era is really small. Most of the money the government spends gets spent buying one thing or another. The amount siphoned off or wasted, as a percentage of what it takes in, is I think fairly small. (as a flat value it is large because of how large the total pool is)



I did a bit of reading and generally studies on the subject find that while immigration has a downward wage effect for low income workers, it has a positive wage outcome for middle and higher income wage earners as well as for entrepreneurs. This is because the overall economy tends to grow due to the added production and consumption.
Here is a Kato institute article discussing the subject: http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration...ges-employment
This one from the economic policy institute concurs: http://www.epi.org/publication/immigration-facts/

Further what is very clear from comparing wage levels and unemployment levels to immigration is that when pay is high for low skill jobs illegal immigration spikes and when it is poor it slacks off significantly. As economists this is very familiar, equilibrium outs, if you get a hot job market you will get lots of folks trying to get in on it and that will cool it.



Tough talk I think works out when you say "Do this and here are the consequences" Its not so great when you point at something already happening and say "Stop that or I'll come get you" They already made that calculation and are committed to what they are doing.



Capitalism invented crony capitalism. Any good capitalist is going to try and get whatever competitive advantage they can, if that means bribing politicians that is what they will do. Certainly it can go the other way but I strongly suspect its a lot rarer for politicians to solicit for bribes than interested parties to offer them.



Trump has had a go at Muslims, Mexicans, Women, and sidestepped easy opportunities to take on the KKK and other open bigots who endorse him. I'm not shutting down debate, I'm saying he is a bigot, panders to bigots, and I really don't like bigots, its as simple as that. Nothing about that stifles your ability to debate and there are no word police working here that I know of so no crying wolf.



Did people die? Did we loose important liberties? Did the economy collapse? Nope on all accounts. Politicians are constantly distracted by all kinds of ****, its politics. I don't like scandals but compared to whether we go to war, and weather people have equal protection under the law, I really don't care.



So a jaywalker can't be president? Trump has plenty of scandals. Vote for Bernie if you think scandal and corruption are a big problem. His net worth is only about double mine which isn't much, basically his entire wealth is a small house in a large city. He has broken the law though, while protesting injustice and the like. Personally I'm fine with a little law breaking for causes I believe in provided you are not hurting people.

Note: I had replied to this, but apparently closed my browser before the content got uploaded....

1) My point about taxes is that I am not getting my money's worth. Your claim of 10% income tax rate means you are claiming poverty level income after deductions. You also are not factoring in state, local, car, property, and sales taxes (among other taxes).
2) I can choose to which companies I wish to do business with. I am sort of stuck with my government. Public corruption is not equivalent to private corruption.
3) Blaming capitalists on government corruption defies the historical record. I'll point to two examples:
a) Read the book, Truman, by McCullough. President Truman lamented the changes in Washington brought about by the New Deal. Suddenly, D.C. was swarming with lawyers in fancy suits looking to get a government handout. Prior to the New Deal, Truman noted that D.C. was mostly quiet and filled with policy wonks rather than the money men which came after.
b) The train barons of the turn of the century were forced to play the political corruption game in order to attain land to lay tracks in order to run their railroad companies. Refusal to pay meant they would not get the routes. Oftentimes, they had to agree to building non-profitable train depots to get the permits they needed. They were coerced into a system of bribes and backroom deals. Of course, once this news became a scandal, the politicians all blamed corporate greed.
4) Clinton aides have openly discussed the negative impact his scandals had on his ability to do his job. Obviously, not all scandals are created equal. However, Hillary's scandals, if true would be as big as any a President has ever had to face. I mean she is being accused of mishandling classified information. Let's not forget potential scandals dealing with the Clinton Foundation and her big money speeches for Wall Street. I guess they were just paying to hear her wonderful words of wisdom.... The idea that people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars without an expectation of gaining influence is absurd. The idea that we believe some group can hand a candidate a large sum of money and that we won't call it a bribe is hilarious. Oh, and when a special "Foundation" is created just for large donors... come on now. I expect my government to be corrupt, but the Clintons are Nixon-esque. Just over the top. So, no, I am not asking for purity. A little restraint would be appreciated though. It is odd, though, that you'd just pretend none of it happened or had any real impact. It is not a stretch to suggest that Osama Bin Laden slipped through the cracks at the end of Bill's term because his team was focused on his scandals. So, in that regard, yeah, people died.
5) You are making this odd attempt at equivocation between jaywalking, protests, and mishandling classified information. It was not like Hillary purposefully leaked info as a form of protest or civil disobedience. She was, it appears, trying to hide her emails from FOIA requests. Whatever the actual reason, there was nothing noble or frivolous about what she did. Do we need this crap for another four years?
6) I think it is funny that Trump's tough talk is immediately called war-mongering. He is a businessman and it is much more likely that, in talking tough, he is trying to gain leverage. Nothing more. Nothing less. In truth, he has been less hawkish than Hillary. Why aren't you calling her a war-mongerer? She wanted troops in Syria.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/politi...n-isis-speech/
7) You are generalizing Trump's comments on Mexicans, women, et al. and trying to call it something it isn't.
- Are you saying that some subset of illegal aliens from Mexico are not dangerous criminals?
- Is is being a bigot to insult a female?
- Is it being a bigot to demand protections be put into place before letting Muslim refugees settle here?
You're just being dismissive of someone's else's opinion which is actually the very definition of bigotry. Thanks for playing!

[CowboyX]

I pay a great deal in taxes. I pay city, county, state and federal taxes. I pay property tax. I pay sales tax. I pay taxes to register my car. The question is, for the money I pay in taxes, what do I get in return?

My state government refuses to improve the highways because they'd rather sink money into a train. The political zealots oppose highway construction because they don't want anyone driving... unless it is a government official (they get free cars..). Roads and other infrastructure projects have been put off due to budget issues, but somehow, the state can find the money to provide illegal immigrants with driver's licenses. Our schools are terrible, but there is money to pay teacher pensions and exorbitant rates for administrators. Oh, and somehow we have money for bilingual programs for kids who shouldn't even be here.

The federal government cannot seem to find the money fix the electrical grid, but there is plenty of money for all sorts of pet projects and subsidies.

The truth is, I'm not getting my money's worth for the labor I send to Washington and Sacramento.

How about a fix such that all Americans must pay taxes? All Americans. If you earn an income, then you should pay taxes. How is it that 45% of all Americans pay zero in federal income taxes and then get to vote for policies which demand other people get taxed more? This is not equal representation. The cry at the Boston Tea Party was no taxation without representation. It was not representation without taxation.
https://boxden.com/showthread.php?t=2325094

So you end up paying federal income tax? People do pay federal income tax, but through tax breaks usually end up getting it all back. Are those the policies you'd like to see done away with?

How about those who earn their income through interest and dividends? Should they pay the same as someone who earns their income from working?

[evensaul]

So you end up paying federal income tax? People do pay federal income tax, but through tax breaks usually end up getting it all back...

Some do. And some get hefty "refunds" of thousands of dollars through the "Earned Income Tax Credit" even though they never had a dime taken out of their paychecks. And then there are those of us who have to pay extra taxes for all of the above who don't. Last year I paid about $300k in federal income taxes and personal property taxes, because I work very hard and earn a lot (almost no income from interest or dividends). But I guess you can't relate to that, can you cowboy, because you're one of the 45%, aren't you? Getting a refund through EITC? On food stamps? Subsidized housing? Getting monthly checks because you're supposedly disabled? More than one of those, I'll bet. You've got no clue that some of us really do pay a lot in income taxes, because you've probably never made enough to pay them. So you think that is normal. Very sad.

[Ibelsd]

So you end up paying federal income tax? People do pay federal income tax, but through tax breaks usually end up getting it all back. Are those the policies you'd like to see done away with?

How about those who earn their income through interest and dividends? Should they pay the same as someone who earns their income from working?

If they end up getting it all back... then, by definition, they do not pay federal income tax.

In terms of interest and dividends, this is a complex issue. Theoretically, money earning interest has already been taxed. If I am earning .06% interest on my money (avg for a savings account) and the inflation rate is 2-5%, then what exactly am I being taxed? My money already lost value. So, should it really be taxed as well? I am essentially paying the government for my right to save my money in a bank.

Dividends, I can see an argument for both sides. It is money paid on top of my investment so I can kinda see where this should be taxed like normal earnings. Dividends are an incentive for me to not sit on my money, but to reinvest in the economy. Taxing it like normal income is a disincentive. So, in that regard, I can also see why it isn't taxed as normal earnings.

Why not just a national sales tax on top of a flat $100-$1000 per person fee. The national sales tax should be indexed based on GDP and debt. So, the more debt government accrues, the more the sales tax rises and vice-versa. This way people would be able to match the spending done by government with an actual cost. The $100-1000 per person fee could be graduated based on gross earnings (including interest and dividends) and would be meant to create a baseline of government revenue and used to ensure severe economic crises wouldn't seriously risk shutting down essential government programs. There is no reason that 85-95% percent of Americans couldn't pay a minimum of $100 per year. Even most homeless people could manage that.

What I favor is a really simple and fair tax code which makes every American accountable and representative of the system. Any tax code which requires highly trained professionals and puts average Americans in fear of breaking the law due to honest mistakes is a poor system.

[CowboyX]

If they end up getting it all back... then, by definition, they do not pay federal income tax.

They only get it back because of tax breaks, home mortgage interest deduction, for example. Student loan interest, children.

---------- Post added at 12:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 AM ----------

In terms of interest and dividends, this is a complex issue. Theoretically, money earning interest has already been taxed. If I am earning .06% interest on my money (avg for a savings account) and the inflation rate is 2-5%, then what exactly am I being taxed? My money already lost value. So, should it really be taxed as well? I am essentially paying the government for my right to save my money in a bank.

Dividends, I can see an argument for both sides. It is money paid on top of my investment so I can kinda see where this should be taxed like normal earnings. Dividends are an incentive for me to not sit on my money, but to reinvest in the economy. Taxing it like normal income is a disincentive. So, in that regard, I can also see why it isn't taxed as normal earnings.

Your principal has already been taxed when you earned it, true. The only thing taxed is the interest, what you earn, which hasn't been taxed yet. So there is no double taxing.

[Ibelsd]

They only get it back because of tax breaks, home mortgage interest deduction, for example. Student loan interest, children.

---------- Post added at 12:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 AM ----------



Your principal has already been taxed when you earned it, true. The only thing taxed is the interest, what you earn, which hasn't been taxed yet. So there is no double taxing.

1) Again, either I am paying federal income tax or not. Tax breaks for whatever may be reasons for not paying taxes, but the end result is clear. Over 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax. The government requires money to operate, correct? So, someone must pay the expenses, correct? Well, if it is not the 40% who pay nothing, then it must be paid by the remaining 60%. How exactly is that fair?

2) I already explained why I find taxing interest on savings does not make sense. You did not address my reasoning. You understand that inflation devalues my money. $100 dollars in the bank today is work about $98 in a year. If I earn 6 (~.06%) cents in interest, then my 100.06 is worth about 98.01. Taxing me on interest at normal income means I'd pay about 2 cents of my 6 cents meaning, my $100 is really worth about $97.99. In other words, without taking into account inflation, taxation on interest is a double hit. I'd also argue this harms the elderly much more than anyone else since it is the elderly who will typically have a majority of their money in a savings account which is considered a safe,stable place to park money.