The General Election

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

So, let's say you are a congressman from Wisconsin and you aren't comfortable with Trump and you start distancing yourself from him. Hillary sure isn't going to come support you. Trump isn't going to be "nice" to you. Hillary voters aren't going to vote for you and now Trump followers are going to stay away from you in droves.

 

Go the other direction and you decide to back him 100% so that he is "nice" to you. Hillary voters still aren't going to vote for you and there are a lot of people that are still not going to be comfortable with Trump and not like that you are backing him.

 

I could clearly see how the Republicans lose all power in Washington.

 

The congressman from Wisconsin is taking shots at Trump today:

​

 

“Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,” Ryan said. “I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable.”

 

 

But then still supports him.

 

But as unacceptable as Ryan found those comments, he’s still willing to accept Trump, textbook racism and all.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-trump-racist_us_5756d6cbe4b07823f9514086?0w7j1hh770p0kke29

 

 

The last quote you referenced shows just how bad Hillary is if Ryan and others are still willing to support Trump. We are left between a racist blowhard that has a strong record of results in the real world vs a pathological liar that has a very thin resume for getting results. Both have serious character flaws, and if those flaws become a wash, this election could actually come down to their records and the issues. What a concept.

 

He's a registered Republican in office. Do you really think there was any chance of him endorsing Hillary no matter who was running as the Republican?

 

 

True, just as I would expect Bernie, Pelosi, and others to still endorse Hillary. There will still be some holdouts on both sides, but you will eventually see most party officials supporting their not so great nominee.

[zoogs]

You stick with pathetic and deeply flawed, and I'll stick with qualified and capable. I think one of us has an objectively stronger case, but I'll leave it at that.

 

If you find Trump to be more mainstream -- on what, foreign policy? Energy? Trade? Equal protections?, we have very different views of the term. Guess we'll have to agree to see things differently, unfortunately.

[HuskerNation1]

You stick with pathetic and deeply flawed, and I'll stick with qualified and capable. I think one of us has an objectively stronger case, but I'll leave it at that.

 

If you find Trump to be more mainstream -- on what, foreign policy? Energy? Trade? Equal protections?, we have very different views of the term. Guess we'll have to agree to see things differently, unfortunately.

 

Of course you feel your case is more objective...we all see things through a different lens. I am hard pressed to find many people that think either of these two candidates is qualified and capable. Hillary is under investigation and could end up in jail, and this is not a result of a Republican-led DOJ. This whole "right-wing conspiracy" line of attack is old, and that is all Clinton defenders seem to rely on. I loved when a journalist asked Hillary if she has always been truthful with the American people, and her response was "well i try to tell the truth as much as i can."

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

 

 

Bottom line - the government shouldn't have near the amount of intervention in our daily lives as they currently have, and i would love to see the establishment get obliterated and bring real freedom back to our country.

 

I think when you start dismantling government programs in the name of Small Government, even the most conservative quickly learn how much they depend on the federal government for SOMETHING. They may hate that inner city crack moms are getting food stamps...

The primary role of the (our) government should be to protect the freedom and rights of our people. Not to reform, install new programs, new bills, etc. That's big government.

Yes, we need a government like the one that was set up in our constitution to establish the basis for what is acceptable and not. But we've come in this country to our government over-regulating, over-taxing, and over-intervening in areas of every day life they shouldn't be involved in.

Yes, the government currently provides semi-socialist programs that certain people are dependent upon. But the average American ought to seek for total freedom and a free marketplace to go out and make things happen and provide for their families instead of being dictated how to do so.

The average American still has the freedom to reject all those government benefits, but they almost never do. The Free Marketplace could reject those big government benefits, too, but of course they don't.

 

Again, you haven't been very specific. Who is preventing you from providing for your family? Who is dictating how to do so? What freedoms have you lost to big government?

 

You do realize that the "free marketplace" dictates terms as well, and would happily return to child labor, the 7 day work week, and unfettered air and water pollution.

 

What Made America Great has always been a Big Government/Big Business collaboration; inherently contentious but often productive and it didn't require choosing sides.

Successful business people do work 7 days a week, first off.

Here would be the main specific that I'd point out: the average American works the first 3-4+ months of the year just to pay the government in the form of taxes and social security, Medicare, etc. That's WAY too much, but the government keeps asking for more historically because they have been incompetent, unable to control their spending, and enable systemic corruption in their departments. It all needs torn apart and reformatted.

Like most people I'd prefer smarter government. Smaller or bigger, doesn't matter as neither has a monopoly on efficiency.

 

If you think efficiency is built into profit motives and free enterprise, you haven't worked for a large corporation. If America was run more like a business, you'd still have bureaucracy, corruption, egos and rampant CYA mindsets.

 

And you do realize that Americans used to pay higher taxes -- often much higher -- back in the days Donald Trump wants to return us to, right?

 

p.s.: Social Security, Medicare, Federal Infrastructure and tons of other so-called "social" programs have a massive positive effect on private enterprise, and every responsible corporate executive understands that.

So you're ok with working January through April just to pay the government? I guess you can categorize my views on taxes as libertarian, but that seems like a waste of my time and energy personally.

[Red Five]

Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois just un-endorsed Trump. He seat is up in 2016. More to follow?

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bottom line - the government shouldn't have near the amount of intervention in our daily lives as they currently have, and i would love to see the establishment get obliterated and bring real freedom back to our country.

I think when you start dismantling government programs in the name of Small Government, even the most conservative quickly learn how much they depend on the federal government for SOMETHING. They may hate that inner city crack moms are getting food stamps...

The primary role of the (our) government should be to protect the freedom and rights of our people. Not to reform, install new programs, new bills, etc. That's big government.

Yes, we need a government like the one that was set up in our constitution to establish the basis for what is acceptable and not. But we've come in this country to our government over-regulating, over-taxing, and over-intervening in areas of every day life they shouldn't be involved in.

Yes, the government currently provides semi-socialist programs that certain people are dependent upon. But the average American ought to seek for total freedom and a free marketplace to go out and make things happen and provide for their families instead of being dictated how to do so.

The average American still has the freedom to reject all those government benefits, but they almost never do. The Free Marketplace could reject those big government benefits, too, but of course they don't.

 

Again, you haven't been very specific. Who is preventing you from providing for your family? Who is dictating how to do so? What freedoms have you lost to big government?

 

You do realize that the "free marketplace" dictates terms as well, and would happily return to child labor, the 7 day work week, and unfettered air and water pollution.

 

What Made America Great has always been a Big Government/Big Business collaboration; inherently contentious but often productive and it didn't require choosing sides.

Successful business people do work 7 days a week, first off.

Here would be the main specific that I'd point out: the average American works the first 3-4+ months of the year just to pay the government in the form of taxes and social security, Medicare, etc. That's WAY too much, but the government keeps asking for more historically because they have been incompetent, unable to control their spending, and enable systemic corruption in their departments. It all needs torn apart and reformatted.

Like most people I'd prefer smarter government. Smaller or bigger, doesn't matter as neither has a monopoly on efficiency.

 

If you think efficiency is built into profit motives and free enterprise, you haven't worked for a large corporation. If America was run more like a business, you'd still have bureaucracy, corruption, egos and rampant CYA mindsets.

 

And you do realize that Americans used to pay higher taxes -- often much higher -- back in the days Donald Trump wants to return us to, right?

 

p.s.: Social Security, Medicare, Federal Infrastructure and tons of other so-called "social" programs have a massive positive effect on private enterprise, and every responsible corporate executive understands that.

So you're ok with working January through April just to pay the government? I guess you can categorize my views on taxes as libertarian, but that seems like a waste of my time and energy personally.

 

 

Your question doesn't address a single point I made.

 

As for Libertarians: I've sometimes felt more akin to the Libertarian philosophy, which can lean just as far left as it does right. And I've been friends with plenty of Libertarians. But it only takes a few minutes of conversation to discover the government programs they rely on and the ones they don't, creating a lot more Libertarian hypocrites than purists.

 

I once interviewed the President of Tax Patriots, the organization trying to eliminate the unconstitutional Federal Income Tax. As a standard question I asked what he did for a living. Turns out he didn't have a job per se, he was living off of federal disability. It was unclear how he felt about that irony.

[teachercd]

Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois just un-endorsed Trump. He seat is up in 2016. More to follow?

Chicago (and it is Chicago) politics...flat our crazy

[Danny Bateman]

Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois just un-endorsed Trump. He seat is up in 2016. More to follow?

 

Kirk is in deep sh#t for reelection anyway. It might not matter what he does. It's got to be a really weird position he's in, though.

 

Yeah, I'd say Trump got hung out to dry pretty good by the party over this. Lindsey Graham is telling people to un-endorse as well. "This is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy."

[Moiraine]

 

Funny thing is.....What he has said about taxes is pretty much what one heck of a lot of what those evil Democrats have been saying.

 

By my calculations 1 percent of Americans who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country would be affected by my plan -- the other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes, Trump said in a statement introducing his plan in November 1999.Donald Trumps Big Socialist Idea

The Huffington Post - Feb 26, 2016

 

He already changed his mind on that. He's in contact with Reagan advisors now.

[Enhance]

 

I happen to disagree on Hillary. She's as accomplished and competent a candidate for the office as we have had, and I don't really subscribe to the decades long, hysterical character assassination levied against her. Her agenda is plain, plaid, and progressive. The Republican ploy at false equivalency, casting her as a Trump figure instead of the mainstream, establishment politician she is, is effective in its appeal to cynicism, but I am not one.

 

It's not a false equivalency at all...both are pathetic and deeply flawed. For you to suggest that she is not says a lot about you frankly, especially the part in bold. As for who is mainstream, I think when you look at policy views, Trump is actually more in the mainstream on many topics (outside of his banning of Muslims), but he's so over the top in his statements that his policies are hard to take seriously. Hillary has always been left of center, and has moved further left of center in recent years with the push toward bigger government solutions to solve problems. And Bernie is keeping her to the left of mainstream.

 

As for establishment, as I've said before a few times, despite the character flaws of both of these candidates, I think the election ultimately comes down to whether the country wants a career politician who is the ultimate insider, or an outsider who wants to shake things up.

 

'Many' is particularly vague. If we can all agree that mainstream equates to the dominant trend, which policies of Trump, specifically, do you believe are mainstream?

 

The reason I ask is because people can certainly argue his views are popular - the fact that he has made it this far in the election proves this. But, that doesn't make those views mainstream.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Funny thing is.....What he has said about taxes is pretty much what one heck of a lot of what those evil Democrats have been saying.

 

By my calculations 1 percent of Americans who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country would be affected by my plan -- the other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes, Trump said in a statement introducing his plan in November 1999.Donald Trumps Big Socialist Idea

The Huffington Post - Feb 26, 2016

 

He already changed his mind on that. He's in contact with Reagan advisors now.

Not sure about that. I read where all the Reagans have endorsed Bernie.......including Ron and Nancy....at least that's what's trending on Facebook.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

I happen to disagree on Hillary. She's as accomplished and competent a candidate for the office as we have had, and I don't really subscribe to the decades long, hysterical character assassination levied against her. Her agenda is plain, plaid, and progressive. The Republican ploy at false equivalency, casting her as a Trump figure instead of the mainstream, establishment politician she is, is effective in its appeal to cynicism, but I am not one.

 

It's not a false equivalency at all...both are pathetic and deeply flawed. For you to suggest that she is not says a lot about you frankly, especially the part in bold. As for who is mainstream, I think when you look at policy views, Trump is actually more in the mainstream on many topics (outside of his banning of Muslims), but he's so over the top in his statements that his policies are hard to take seriously. Hillary has always been left of center, and has moved further left of center in recent years with the push toward bigger government solutions to solve problems. And Bernie is keeping her to the left of mainstream.

 

As for establishment, as I've said before a few times, despite the character flaws of both of these candidates, I think the election ultimately comes down to whether the country wants a career politician who is the ultimate insider, or an outsider who wants to shake things up.

 

'Many' is particularly vague. If we can all agree that mainstream equates to the dominant trend, which policies of Trump, specifically, do you believe are mainstream?

 

The reason I ask is because people can certainly argue his views are popular - the fact that he has made it this far in the election proves this. But, that doesn't make those views mainstream.

 

 

Well Trump is not pushing hard-line Conservative policies. He is against many trade deals that Republicans have traditionally supported, but many moderate and blue collar voters are supportive of this approach. Trump is not for reducing taxes on the rich but focused on the middle class. Trump favors reducing regulations and the burden on businesses which helps with job creation. Trump favors a foreign policy that focuses on America First and can argue that Hillary Clinton has done more to destabilize the Middle East with her Senate voting record and her time as SOS. I'm not going to claim he owns every mainstream issue, but he is a populist candidate and is much different than past GOP candidates. Hillary definitely does not have the mainstream mantle and will have to work hard to seize the center. Her support of Obamacare and job-killing regulations (including opposition to the Keystone pipeline) put her at odds with mainstream voters. Also, her avid support for the Iran deal is not popular with many voters. So its a complete joke to label her as a candidate of the mainstream voter. Now if mainstream means a candidate of entrenched Washington interests, yes, that describes Hillary well.

[Red Five]

So Trump toned it down last night, gave a speech from a teleprompter, and tried looking more presidential seemingly in response to many high ranking Rs calling him out over the last few days.

 

First, I don't think he can stick to that persona for the next 4 months. And second, his whole campaign is built on being Trump, a braggadocious guy who will say anything. IMO, he can't win being a "normal" candidate, his only way to win is to keep Trumping it up.

[HuskerShark]

I agree with that 100%. I think he needs to stay away from overly provocative statements, but a big selling point of his is that he's real and authentic.

[Danny Bateman]

So Trump toned it down last night, gave a speech from a teleprompter, and tried looking more presidential seemingly in response to many high ranking Rs calling him out over the last few days.

 

First, I don't think he can stick to that persona for the next 4 months. And second, his whole campaign is built on being Trump, a braggadocious guy who will say anything. IMO, he can't win being a "normal" candidate, his only way to win is to keep Trumping it up.

 

I love the rare chance to see Trump give a prompter speech. He's done 3, I think-- AIPAC (pro-Israeli Jewish group), foreign policy speech a while ago, and last night.

 

They're amazing because it's so nakedly apparent when he's staying on script and when he improvises and injects some choice Trumpisms. It's like his left and right brain are dueling and both get their turn at the mic. I find it hilarious.