[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[Aerion Brightflame]

Sure

 

Axiom polls show the change happening I think

 

Rich Globalist whites will leave the Republican party and flock to either the Dems if HRC like people run it or libertarians

 

Poor working class Blacks and Whites will flee the democratic party and come over to the Trumpian wing which will remold in a Teddy Roosevelt type party. Blue Dogs will be the representative group of this. Social moderates, economic neo-moderates

 

Dems will have no choice but to go sanders wing, HRC can play her con game, but at most it'll be for 8 years. People have bought into sanders

 

Regardless, America will be an isolationist nation that will strive to remove money from politics from both the left and the right.

 

Best case, you get three functional parties with Libertarians getting enough out of both the Dems and the Reps to compete on a national scale. But I doubt it. They'll go from 5-7% to 10-12% me thinks

 

Obama term 1 was center left. Obama term 2 is not, he's been taken over by both PC SJWs and Globalists 

 

What about the current Republican base; I.E. the white Religious nut-jobs and one-issue voters? Where will they go under your vision?

 

Likewise what do you think the shift be if Trump loses, and not just loses 52-48, but by like 60-40. If he loses enough to show that the viewpoints Trump represented had no real political swing to them. As vocal as some of his supporters can be, it will not take off in mainstream politics if he gets trounced so what happens then? 

 

Likewise if the DNC, through Sanders obtains a majority in the senate and/or the house, what will be the effect then? Will Sanders policys dominate, or will they remain centre with a focus on the left and real legislative power and thus sweep elections till the GOP comes with a suitable opposition? 

 

And elaborate on why you think his second term hasn't been centre left? 

[Dad]

Oh I'm not offended.  I'm genuinely curious as to what you understand about the poor working class of blacks.  It ain't personal.  Sarcastic, maybe.  I'm here to listen and observe.  I haven't posted nearly as much as I want to because I'm trying to stay impartial and learn both sides of the spectrum.

 

So speak on it.  What do you know?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

What about the current Republican base; I.E. the white Religious nut-jobs and one-issue voters? 

 

Somehow I don't expect Roxas will take issue with these particular generalizations. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What about the current Republican base; I.E. the white Religious nut-jobs and one-issue voters? Where will they go under your vision?

 

Likewise what do you think the shift be if Trump loses, and not just loses 52-48, but by like 60-40. If he loses enough to show that the viewpoints Trump represented had no real political swing to them. As vocal as some of his supporters can be, it will not take off in mainstream politics if he gets trounced so what happens then? 

 

Likewise if the DNC, through Sanders obtains a majority in the senate and/or the house, what will be the effect then? Will Sanders policys dominate, or will they remain centre with a focus on the left and real legislative power and thus sweep elections till the GOP comes with a suitable opposition? 

 

And elaborate on why you think his second term hasn't been centre left? 

They'll moderate. Evangelicals have stuck behind Trump (and actually gained support) after pussygate. Trump voters are significantly more likely to accept LGBT than Cruz and Rubio voters, but share enough issues like moderation on Abortion to pull them left.

 

Exposure to LGBT folk who just want to live their lives in peace changes people views on LGB(T) from their initial disgust at seeing two men in BDSM gear twerking on the street in front of a 12 year old during a pride parade 

 

I think give it 5 more years and a super majority of the republican party will accept homosexuality. In my eyes Trump's stance on abortion is a fine middle ground and most people on the right already buy it. The people who want no exceptions for rape are thankfully few

 

60-40 IDK. There has been a disconnect from Ryan and Kasich GOP for a long while now, and I don't think us Trump supporters will ever settle for that brand again. They've not performed despite being given chance after chance. But 60-40 is something I cannot be sure about. It'll def set us back.

 

I think the center left is done. Either they're blue dogs like me, or globalists in the closet. They're more akin to Ryan than Sanders. If Sanders can help push the senate to his types then there's no reason to keep to the center as center globalist politics in the eyes of sanders supporters is two faced and 1% favored

 

And Blue Dogs are primitive bigots

 

I think they will progress further left and maintain real political power until the Trumpians can put down the globalist wing of the GOP. Basically the center is done.

 

As for Obama.

 

Bill Clinton is my ideal Democrat. Bill Clinton of the 90's. I'd prefer him to be a little more left on LGBT and more nationalist on NAFTA, but beyond that Bill was policy perfection

 

Now from that point have to look at Obama

 

Bill lowered the capital-gains tax rate; Obama has proposed raising it.

 

Bill cut spending and produced a surplus. Under Obama, spending and the deficit reached record levels.

 

In foreign policy, Obama has shown himself to be far more critical of traditional allies and more supine toward our adversaries than Bill was.

 

Obama has often acted as if American strength is a problem to which the solution is retrenchment, or even retreat.

 

Bill was tough on Illegal Immigration, Obama while tough has pushed the Dreamers program

 

You know, maybe I was wrong, I suppose I was a bit young, but I feel Obama 2008 was closer to Bill 1996 than Obama 2012, maybe not and even 2008 Obama would have been a deviation from Bill's perfection 

 

 

Oh I'm not offended.  I'm genuinely curious as to what you understand about the poor working class of blacks.  It ain't personal.  Sarcastic, maybe.  I'm here to listen and observe.  I haven't posted nearly as much as I want to because I'm trying to stay impartial and learn both sides of the spectrum.

 

So speak on it.  What do you know?

I don't want to overstep, and this is just what I've gathered by watching recent events.

 

There's a lot of decay in the Black Family; it seems like men are going their own way and that puts the children in a vicious cycle to go their own way too. This is no fault to the black mother, but it's unreasonable to expect her to carry the burden all by herself.

 

There's violence in the black community, and a large portion of that is from the industry the war on Drugs has created. Ideally pot should be legal. But at the very least it should be decriminalized and rehabilitation instead of incarceration should emphasized.

 

To keep a healthy family running the parents need to be bread winners which means good paying jobs, that are potentially unskilled for Gen X black men who it is unfair to expect to go to college at this point. This can be well paying construction jobs or the kind. 

 

Through the economic manipulation of NSSE, the minimum wage should equal the equilibrium wage should be a living wage, this will bring many black families out of poverty.

 

Ending the war on drugs will ideally pull a lot of black men off the streets and place them in jobs. This will 1) reduce police-black interactions and 2) black on black crime

 

1) Will slowly ease out the main grievance of Black Lives Matter since the view of lawless blacks will slowly vanish from law enforcement's mind

 

School choice will allow the black child to get a proper and fruitful education so that they can attend college and progress to working jobs that of their caliber. The construction jobs will likely be mechanized by the time our children go to college and will no longer exist to be done. 

 

With a successful future for their children, and a living wage for the parents, I now hope that the parents will be able to stay together.

 

Sorry if any of this seems condescending, it's really not meant to sound so

[Aerion Brightflame]

Somehow I don't expect Roxas will take issue with these particular generalizations. 

Probably not. 

 

But outside of those two groups I have no idea what the Republican base is, because to my knowledge those are the two major groups Republicans basically can't lose, and the groups that consistently win them seats. The Democrats never pander to the Religious right, and one issue voters are one issue voters. 

 

Maybe saying pro-life one issue voters would have been more fair, because that's again something the Republicans in there current form cannot lose. 

 

So sure, it's a generalisation but it's not an unfair one in my mind, because they are groups that I imagine vote overwhelmingly in favour of Republicans. I'm not saying that's all of the Republican voters. I also should have said that it's a core part of the base, not the base in it's entirety. 

 

 

Bill cut spending and produced a surplus. Under Obama, spending and the deficit reached record levels.

 

Isn't this comparison unfair, or at the very least simplified? Basically all economic comparisons are unfair because Bill presided over the greatest period of economic growth in recent history, and Obama had to take charge during the greatest recession since The Great Depression. Bill got in during a period of relative downturn, but it was a downturn already on the up, and the up he experienced would have happened to anyone in office. 

 

 I don't think there is a scenario where the political centre will ever stop exist, it will just be redefined. You will always have less people on the fringes than in the middle, or who don't care much either way. It's just the nature of things. 

 

The DNC can attempt to appeal to very liberal sorts, but the GOP has proven that going hard on the extreme side of your support doesn't pay off well in the long term because it allows your opponent to pull to the centre and get a larger voter share. So even if Sander's candidates get a large amount of senate support, it doesn't mean the DNC would cater solely to the liberals because such a thing would be self defeating. 

[Dad]

I don't want to overstep, and this is just what I've gathered by watching recent events.

 

There's a lot of decay in the Black Family; it seems like men are going their own way and that puts the children in a vicious cycle to go their own way too. This is no fault to the black mother, but it's unreasonable to expect her to carry the burden all by herself.

 

There's violence in the black community, and a large portion of that is from the industry the war on Drugs has created. Ideally pot should be legal. But at the very least it should be decriminalized and rehabilitation instead of incarceration should emphasized.

 

To keep a healthy family running the parents need to be bread winners which means good paying jobs, that are potentially unskilled for Gen X black men who it is unfair to expect to go to college at this point. This can be well paying construction jobs or the kind. 

 

Through the economic manipulation of NSSE, the minimum wage should equal the equilibrium wage should be a living wage, this will bring many black families out of poverty.

 

Ending the war on drugs will ideally pull a lot of black men off the streets and place them in jobs. This will 1) reduce police-black interactions and 2) black on black crime

 

1) Will slowly ease out the main grievance of Black Lives Matter since the view of lawless blacks will slowly vanish from law enforcement's mind

 

School choice will allow the black child to get a proper and fruitful education so that they can attend college and progress to working jobs that of their caliber. The construction jobs will likely be mechanized by the time our children go to college and will no longer exist to be done. 

 

With a successful future for their children, and a living wage for the parents, I now hope that the parents will be able to stay together.

 

Sorry if any of this seems condescending, it's really not meant to sound so

 

The socio-economic challenges of poor working black communities doesn't just stem from the drug game.  There are a plethora of reasons that a person might get into drugs, but "minimum wage jobs" is a fraction of that.  A lot of the jobs we're willing to take and work up from are being moved to places that we have no access to.  They're taking jobs and schools out of the ghetto and moving them to rich suburbs, where the money flows and the children are more fortunate.

 

You've got the right idea.  But ending the war on drugs isn't gonna cut it.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Bill Clinton jailed more black people than anyone. He actually apologized for the mass-incarcerations, but has since retracted that apology in dramatic fashion.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Bill Clinton jailed more black people than anyone. He actually apologized for the mass-incarcerations, but has since retracted that apology in dramatic fashion.

I may have missed something but I'm curious what the relation between this and the election is. Besides that he's married to one of the candidates.

Edit: Re-read Winter's post last page, is it that?

 

Speaking of what are the candidates ideas for this issue?

[mido9]

Can I chime in?

I also think that the awful media coverage of most black shootings is really REALLY damaging to the black community. I mean, look at this video for instance:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k7pzaGOp8U

 

or this or this or this

 

It ends up (falsely!) starting all these riots or inciting blacks into doing crime out of belief that they can't do anything or that they'll never be rich unless they steal from people, which makes the areas less safe to start a business(nobody's going to do business in say, charlotte's ghettos for a long time now), which makes more people poor, and it ends up in this awful circle where blacks do crime out of belief that they're being targetted, which makes them do more crime, which makes them actually poor because businesses can't start businesses there/they got a criminal record, which makes them do more crime, so on and it's just a negative feedback loop of (fake) poverty -> crime -> real poverty -> crime -> poverty -> crime etc etc. I honestly really legitimately believe a random black community in wherever that doesn't get flooded with riots or crime will be just as good as any random poor city in Massachusetts or Idaho or something.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I may have missed something but I'm curious what the relation between this and the election is. Besides that he's married to one of the candidates.

Edit: Re-read Winter's post last page, is it that?

 

Yes, it was with reference to Winter calling Bill Clinton the ideal Democrat before acknowledging the damage the supposed "war on drugs" dealt to black communities, which started with Reagan. I wanted to emphasize Bill Clinton's role in escalating that damage. It should however be noted that Hillary championed and signed off on that same 1994 crime bill and holds her own share of accountability.

 

The Clintons haven't been good to the black community. 

[Dad]

Mido.  Crime in black communities is related to poverty.  That's true for white neighborhoods too.  There is an accurate correlation between the two.  Denying it doesn't make it false.

 

And the same "beliefs" you're perpetuating are half truths.  Because those riots in Charlotte were also defended against by black store owners, black community leaders who called for peace, and black men who were sick of the rioting.  But you didn't know that because the coverage was minimal.  Your point is misconstrued.  

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

But I digress.

What has this thread become? Winter posts way too many paragraphs about how the party has betrayed him or something, and that he no longer identifies with it, and then we spend so long debating what really is just semantics? No. Winter does not have the same political beliefs as many of us. But we already knew that, and whatever he wants to call his beliefs and whatever he wants to call our beliefs really is of no consequence. It demonstrates the crux of the issue in elections as divisive as this. Everyone gets caught up in he said she said, trying to make the opponent look like a terrible person to negate their point, rather than going over the point itself. Yes, the personal characteristics of whoever is to become president matter, but it should not overshadow important issues such as policy.

That is why I am opposed to Donald Trump. Not because I think he is a despicable child. Not because he shows absolutely no level of professionalism. Not because he refuses to believe that he isn't always adequate, instead blaming the system for each and every one of his failures. No. I am opposed to Donald J. Trump because of his policy or, more accurately put, lack thereof. Despite constant (false) claims of glaring issues in Clinton's various proposals, and his promises to "make America great again" the details he presents (when details even exist) simply don't line up with realistic economic models.

He claims that this is because those models are all wrong, and that he knows these systems better than proven institutions, but what is there to back this up? His bachelor's degree in economics? He makes claims of apparent certainty that nonpartisan (even right-leaning) studies show to be absolutely incorrect. Of course, this brings up the painfully standard defense that this all is a result of conspiracy against him, and that these sources cannot be trusted, but at that point he really is just pushing a campaign of ignorance.

Winter, you have complained time and again about being betrayed by Obama. You take it as a personal attack that he made promises for the American people that he did not manage to keep. Do you not see how Trump is taking a similar path? So many of the projections he boasts are unverifiable, if not completely unscientific. You have been saying you don't want to put you trust in someone who won't deliver on what they promise, but the vast majority of the Trump campaign has been making promises that, objectively speaking, cannot and will not come true.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

 

That is why I am opposed to Donald Trump. Not because I think he is a despicable child. Not because he shows absolutely no level of professionalism. Not because he refuses to believe that he isn't always adequate, instead blaming the system for each and every one of his failures. No.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis

 

 

Of course, this brings up the painfully standard defense that this all is a result of conspiracy against him, and that these sources cannot be trusted, but at that point he really is just pushing a campaign of ignorance.

 

Sounds exactly like Hillary's response to Wikileaks. Calling a source into question =/= "pushing a campaign of ignorance".

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Statements like "they (US intelligence) don't know anything" or "nobody knows more about taxes than I do" go a little bit over the line of "calling a source into question". It is blatantly ignoring the actual experts in favor of what Trump insists is the case.

 

And even if my debating tactics were not the best, it doesn't change the fact that there is little to no evidence of the benefits Trump claims his policies provide.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis

 

 

 

Sounds exactly like Hillary's response to Wikileaks. Calling a source into question =/= "pushing a campaign of ignorance".

The problem lies where he's not only saying the source is questionable, but saying he knows better than the source. That's an important difference. Especially in this case. Seeing as, as opposed to Wikileaks which is calling a more/less singular source into question, this is claiming knowing better than a group of sources, who specifically have done research and studies on their side. Studies about very solid and known facts.

 

Basically on one side is Wikileaks which, while likely true, is a collection of data that can potentially be interpreted wrong. Sure, Hilary probably has done this sheet and it's terrible but that's not really the issue being addressed here.

On the other side is a collection of professionals vs a single man who says he knows better but doesn't have anything to back it up. Trump's plans and policies hinge on him being correct vs these men and women.

 

At least that's how it seems to me.

[epicmemesbro]

I figured there would be some difficulty for people outside of the U.S. regarding where political parties land on the ideological spectrum and vice versa so I took the liberty to make a political spectrum, it's similar to the one most are familiar with (x axis replaces left and right with economic left and right and authoritarian/libertarian with social right and left [the political compass most of you are used to uses these terms synonymously so its not changing where views lie on the spectrum.]).

 

Here is the one of U.S. parties:

 

 

 

Here is the one for parties outside of the U.S. (with where the main U.S. parties would lie in it):

 

[mido9]

Statements like "they (US intelligence) don't know anything" or "nobody knows more about taxes than I do" go a little bit over the line of "calling a source into question". It is blatantly ignoring the actual experts in favor of what Trump insists is the case.

 

And even if my debating tactics were not the best, it doesn't change the fact that there is little to no evidence of the benefits Trump claims his policies provide.

Yes but experts lie for political gain all the time, just because they're experts doesn't mean they won't collude.

 

You can pretty much see this all the time, such as experts saying that bush's housing bubble was sustainable two years before it popped, or experts saying that greece's financing is sustainable, or experts claiming that the EU's spending is going to make it grow faster(it's the slowest growing economy in the world and has been for give or take three decades, and in many of its countries is SLOWER than the great depression), or negative interest rates(in general) or etc. Especially when you look at the actual results and not the promises they're making to justify the promises they failed to meet previously. Even just convincing people to go into bubbles hoping the politician they were promoting is out of office when it pops can be a disastrous lie.

 

Really, acting like what experts say is always right without looking at what they actually propose is just ignoring the massive conflict of interest to the tune of potentially tens of millions of dollars they get to promote this... especially when you only look at one side of the experts and not the ones that are opposed to it and see which one makes sense.

[VCR_CAT]

Yes but experts lie for political gain all the time, just because they're experts doesn't mean they won't collude.

 

You can pretty much see this all the time, such as experts saying that bush's housing bubble was sustainable two years before it popped, or experts saying that greece's financing is sustainable, or experts claiming that the EU's spending is going to make it grow faster(it's the slowest growing economy in the world and has been for give or take three decades, and in many of its countries is SLOWER than the great depression), or negative interest rates(in general) or etc. Especially when you look at the actual results and not the promises they're making to justify the promises they failed to meet previously. Even just convincing people to go into bubbles hoping the politician they were promoting is out of office when it pops can be a disastrous lie.

 

Really, acting like what experts say is always right without looking at what they actually propose is just ignoring the massive conflict of interest to the tune of potentially tens of millions of dollars they get to promote this... especially when you only look at one side of the experts and not the ones that are opposed to it and see which one makes sense.

 

Acting like what experts say is always bull because some lie or get things wrong is acting out ignorance. As with anything, it's always best to confer with different sources and double check what's going on. Experts can lie or be wrong, yes, but that's not always the case. Approach facts and media with a critical mind, not a cynical one.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Yes but experts lie for political gain all the time, just because they're experts doesn't mean they won't collude.

 

You can pretty much see this all the time, such as experts saying that bush's housing bubble was sustainable two years before it popped, or experts saying that greece's financing is sustainable, or experts claiming that the EU's spending is going to make it grow faster(it's the slowest growing economy in the world and has been for give or take three decades, and in many of its countries is SLOWER than the great depression), or negative interest rates(in general) or etc. Especially when you look at the actual results and not the promises they're making to justify the promises they failed to meet previously. Even just convincing people to go into bubbles hoping the politician they were promoting is out of office when it pops can be a disastrous lie.

 

Really, acting like what experts say is always right without looking at what they actually propose is just ignoring the massive conflict of interest to the tune of potentially tens of millions of dollars they get to promote this... especially when you only look at one side of the experts and not the ones that are opposed to it and see which one makes sense.

I think, between experts who may or may not be lying and Trump who is simply claiming he knows better, idk, I think I kinda have to go with the experts, logically.

[Sunshine Jesse]

I think, between experts who may or may not be lying and Trump who is simply claiming he knows better, idk, I think I kinda have to go with the experts, logically.

This is honestly the culmination of conservative Americans saying for decades that the "experts" and "intellectuals" are a problem.

 

I don't know if he honestly believes that. I think it's more pandering.

 

 

I figured there would be some difficulty for people outside of the U.S. regarding where political parties land on the ideological spectrum and vice versa so I took the liberty to make a political spectrum, it's similar to the one most are familiar with (x axis replaces left and right with economic left and right and authoritarian/libertarian with social right and left [the political compass most of you are used to uses these terms synonymously so its not changing where views lie on the spectrum.]).

 

Here is the one of U.S. parties:

 

 

 

I disagree with your assessment for where the Republicans stand socially entirely, but the rest is mostly spot on.

[Aerion Brightflame]

In the same vein you can't dismiss the word of experts simply because they have gotten things wrong in the past; they are educated on given subjects, not infallible. Which is something that seems to occur within some circles; people take the fact experts are fallable as evidence that experts are wrong and that they know better in there gut. It's something very base that Trump attaches to, making people feel validated by rienforcing the idea 'No I know better than all these educated experts'. 

 

There's a middle ground essentially between the two, that usually relies around checking the actual credentials and associations of the expert in question. 

 

If Trump was saying 'No, the experts have it wrong because of X.Y and Z which they have overlooked', and had a legitimate well reasoned argument as to why all the intelligence experts are wrong, then his disagreement wouldn't be an issue. The issue is that without reason, he believes foreign intelligence agencies words on the matter over domestic ones, and in general just goes 'they are wrong, trust me I know better'. Which in and of itself isn't a terrible characteristic in a leader, just not in the frequency that Trump does it. 

 

You don't need the president to always be the most knowledgeable individual on a given topic. We don't need them to know best at all times; but at the very least, they should show a willingness to listen to those who are in theory more knowledgeable on a given topic than they are themselves and make an informed decision based on that. Which does not come from a blatant dismissal of all experts on a matter you should have almost know knowledge of firsthand. 

 

EDIT: Essentially the response to intellectuals being wrong shouldn't be to consider all intellectuals wrong all the time. 

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

There are experts and intellectuals on both sides, some of whom support what Donald Trump says and agree with him when he contradicts other experts and intellectuals.      

 

This is honestly the culmination of conservative Americans saying for decades that the "experts" and "intellectuals" are a problem.

EDIT: Essentially the response to intellectuals being wrong shouldn't be to consider all intellectuals wrong all the time. 

 

https://stream.org/the-myth-of-donald-trump-as-anti-intellectual/

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The socio-economic challenges of poor working black communities doesn't just stem from the drug game.  There are a plethora of reasons that a person might get into drugs, but "minimum wage jobs" is a fraction of that.  A lot of the jobs we're willing to take and work up from are being moved to places that we have no access to.  They're taking jobs and schools out of the ghetto and moving them to rich suburbs, where the money flows and the children are more fortunate.

 

You've got the right idea.  But ending the war on drugs isn't gonna cut it.

Public Trans work workers and children can always been improved upon. If Europe can have a classy system of high-raise monorails, there's no reason we shouldn't.

 

Transportation aside, can you tell me about the other reasons that contribute to the Socio-Economic challenges of the poor working blacks?

 

 

Bill Clinton jailed more black people than anyone. He actually apologized for the mass-incarcerations, but has since retracted that apology in dramatic fashion.

Didn't say he was perfect. I have my problems with Reagan too w/ his Amnesty bill. I usually attribute the war on Drugs on Bush, but that's between likely overly simplistic to wrong 

 

 

Mido.  Crime in black communities is related to poverty.  That's true for white neighborhoods too.  There is an accurate correlation between the two.  Denying it doesn't make it false.

 

And the same "beliefs" you're perpetuating are half truths.  Because those riots in Charlotte were also defended against by black store owners, black community leaders who called for peace, and black men who were sick of the rioting.  But you didn't know that because the coverage was minimal.  Your point is misconstrued.  

Results speak is the problem, there were at least 3 days of absolute savagery. Relative to the peaceful handling of the Oklahoma shooting, NC was barbaric man

 

Things like Ferguson and this just don't help anyone. And while you're likely right in that black leaders wanted it to stop, for every black leader who says that there's usually one relative of protesters pushes for more violence

 

At this point, I'm not even sure these Soros funded ops are helping or hurting

 

 

 

But I digress.

 

What has this thread become? Winter posts way too many paragraphs about how the party has betrayed him or something, and that he no longer identifies with it, and then we spend so long debating what really is just semantics? No. Winter does not have the same political beliefs as many of us. But we already knew that, and whatever he wants to call his beliefs and whatever he wants to call our beliefs really is of no consequence. It demonstrates the crux of the issue in elections as divisive as this. Everyone gets caught up in he said she said, trying to make the opponent look like a terrible person to negate their point, rather than going over the point itself. Yes, the personal characteristics of whoever is to become president matter, but it should not overshadow important issues such as policy.

 

That is why I am opposed to Donald Trump. Not because I think he is a despicable child. Not because he shows absolutely no level of professionalism. Not because he refuses to believe that he isn't always adequate, instead blaming the system for each and every one of his failures. No. I am opposed to Donald J. Trump because of his policy or, more accurately put, lack thereof. Despite constant (false) claims of glaring issues in Clinton's various proposals, and his promises to "make America great again" the details he presents (when details even exist) simply don't line up with realistic economic models.

 

He claims that this is because those models are all wrong, and that he knows these systems better than proven institutions, but what is there to back this up? His bachelor's degree in economics? He makes claims of apparent certainty that nonpartisan (even right-leaning) studies show to be absolutely incorrect. Of course, this brings up the painfully standard defense that this all is a result of conspiracy against him, and that these sources cannot be trusted, but at that point he really is just pushing a campaign of ignorance.

 

Winter, you have complained time and again about being betrayed by Obama. You take it as a personal attack that he made promises for the American people that he did not manage to keep. Do you not see how Trump is taking a similar path? So many of the projections he boasts are unverifiable, if not completely unscientific. You have been saying you don't want to put you trust in someone who won't deliver on what they promise, but the vast majority of the Trump campaign has been making promises that, objectively speaking, cannot and will not come true.

 

1st Para: It's more about starting a conversation about political realignment post '16 

 

2nd Para: These would be the same economic models that predicted a total collapse of England if Leave won 

 

3nd Para: What's there to prove it? IDK Trump warning us about both the Housing and Dot com bubbles while all these models and the fine folk behind it were silent. The models from people like moodys have failed us time and time again. So no, not his degree, though that may have helped.

 

4th Para: I don't blame him for only that. The GOP is to blame for him not keeping all of his plans. As of recent he's been involved in a lot of skulldoggery with HRC that goes back to 2012. I feel like the man I was told to look up to in '08 and the man I supported in '12 isn't really the guy who's here now. His left-shift + his reneging is what makes me dislike him

 

Ok, so what's your point? Trump won't do all that he promised? He's already planted a sword in Political Correctness, that shitpile is on it's way out. At this point if he does anything he promises I'll be happy to choose him over HRC where if she does anything she promises I'll be worse off. That's the merit of liking your candidate over just hating his opponent. I have 90+% common ground w/ Trump

 

 

Statements like "they (US intelligence) don't know anything" or "nobody knows more about taxes than I do" go a little bit over the line of "calling a source into question". It is blatantly ignoring the actual experts in favor of what Trump insists is the case.

 

And even if my debating tactics were not the best, it doesn't change the fact that there is little to no evidence of the benefits Trump claims his policies provide.

Yeah totally, the US Intelligence is amazing. That's why Daesh butt-funked us 3 days ago by sneaking around behind us while we were trying to siege mosul and bombed Kirkuk. We've had nothing but brilliance from the US Intel community as of recently. The one good thing they did was banning Bin Laden

 

Trump is the one who made a 9 figure profit off the tax code, I haven't seen too many of these "experts" pull something like that off

 

Results speak

 

 

 

 

 

Well Bernie is a populist too, so where does he go

 

 

I think, between experts who may or may not be lying and Trump who is simply claiming he knows better, idk, I think I kinda have to go with the experts, logically.

Nah, Trump has proven he knows better. Experts have proven they know all of jackshit from 2000 onward

 

Jesse's reason to opposing Trump is honestly more sound than urs or seemingly giga's

 

 

In the same vein you can't dismiss the word of experts simply because they have gotten things wrong in the past; they are educated on given subjects, not infallible. Which is something that seems to occur within some circles; people take the fact experts are fallable as evidence that experts are wrong and that they know better in there gut. It's something very base that Trump attaches to, making people feel validated by rienforcing the idea 'No I know better than all these educated experts'. 

 

There's a middle ground essentially between the two, that usually relies around checking the actual credentials and associations of the expert in question. 

 

If Trump was saying 'No, the experts have it wrong because of X.Y and Z which they have overlooked', and had a legitimate well reasoned argument as to why all the intelligence experts are wrong, then his disagreement wouldn't be an issue. The issue is that without reason, he believes foreign intelligence agencies words on the matter over domestic ones, and in general just goes 'they are wrong, trust me I know better'. Which in and of itself isn't a terrible characteristic in a leader, just not in the frequency that Trump does it. 

 

You don't need the president to always be the most knowledgeable individual on a given topic. We don't need them to know best at all times; but at the very least, they should show a willingness to listen to those who are in theory more knowledgeable on a given topic than they are themselves and make an informed decision based on that. Which does not come from a blatant dismissal of all experts on a matter you should have almost know knowledge of firsthand. 

 

EDIT: Essentially the response to intellectuals being wrong shouldn't be to consider all intellectuals wrong all the time. 

They've been wrong on the most pivotal occurrences of the near two decades. 

 

They ignored evidence from Mossad and the Kremlin about 9/11

 

They missed the dotcom burst

 

The messed up Iraq

 

They didn't learn from the Dotcom burst and messed up the housing bubble

 

They didn't learn from Iraq and messed up the Arab spring

 

They messed up on the ACA

 

And now they're not learning from Al-Queda and are messing up with Daesh, and they're not learning from housing bubble or the Healthcare collapses. There's a car loan bubble we're in right now, and who ever wins is gonna have a nightmare 4 years cause that's gonna pop soon

 

Edit:

 

Oh Trump was even more right than I expected, it's not just Kirkuk, they laid a bait and switch and we walked into it

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-atrocities-idUSKCN12P1A4?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=580fbaef04d30170cf864694&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

[Sunshine Jesse]

Didn't say he was perfect. I have my problems with Reagan too w/ his Amnesty bill. I usually attribute the war on Drugs on Bush, but that's between likely overly simplistic to wrong

Depending on how much of a conspiracy nut you are, you could actually pin the source of the drug war as far back as Nixon.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Depending on how much of a conspiracy nut you are, you could actually pin the source of the drug war as far back as Nixon.

All I know is that if Trump wins the cocaine prices around here are gonna go up