My Thoughts: American Presidential Primaries

[Magick]

So that leaves Hillary, Cruz and me.  

[Erelei]

 

[Ambroas]

See this is all my issue with elections, I can't decide who is the best candidate that I think will do well it's who is going to do the least amount of damage.  Personally I wonder if we as Americans believe that every candidate is wrong why can't we call for some type of reset where they have to find someone new to run?  Or just get rid of the parties, TV advertisements and have debates/alloted times and allow the common man to run against billionaires on even ground using limited time, free social media and word of mouth.  Hilliary is under criminal investigation and should be, Bernie is a socialist who wants poor people to get everything for free at the cost of the rich it seems like, Trump is focused on hate and anger against our problems, Cruz is a liar, Kasich is a huge supporter of Obama Care which the last poll for said over half of Americans disapprove of now.  If I were told to choose a president from the populace I wouldn't pick any of these people.  

In the end though does it really matter?  The president is going to go with whoever pays the most and whatever group is largest/loudest at the moment in the media.  They won't stand for what they say when they run and they won't choose America's future over their own pocketbook.

[Vaerick]

I really like Bernie. First and foremost, let's be realistic. No President can completely pass bills even with the full backing of a party- Bernie is an outlier so he will have trouble with Dems and Republicans. So a lot of what he wants probably won't come to pass. I particularly don't like the idea of a minimum wage hike to $15. Not because I don't think workers deserve more, but all minimum wage does is pass the buck to the consumer. They gotta find a way to put the worker and the executive in the same boat. Maybe something like... lowest workers wage = x and the executive gets taxed more after their salary hits more that y times x. That way it takes away their ability to pass the buck on to the consumer as much and it incentivizes them to pay decent wages. But I digress.

Bernie is important for many reasons. He is absolutely right about the corruption and elections- it's a joke, a true mockery of what it is supposed to be. Elections, imo, should be taxpayer funded with a certain amount for each candidates who get enough preliminary votes to get on the ballot. More to the point, past elections the whole system is a twisted wreck of partisanship and bribery, and I know I'm not the only one who is disgusted by it. Bernie is breaking records raising money, and the fact is, all the polls are botched- which is why he keeps bringing upsets. THe polls are based on landline telephones, not cellphones so the younger people who like him are not getting polled properly. His support is likely much much higher than what is reported. And even more so, a guy who's pretty much been an independent all his life? HELL YEAH. I'll take the 10% dem to get the 90% indi any day of the week.

As for taxes. Let's be honest, taxes built the middle class, when applied in the right fashion it would return it. Doesn't anyone else find it a bit suspect that as taxes have fallen from the 90% over.. a million I think... to what it is now, while at the same time the middle class is dying with the majority sinking below the bubble and a few popping up. Taxes on rich people over x amount earned during WWII was about as brutal wealth redistribution as you can get. And what did it bring? The GI bill which brought education to many many vets, allowing them to grow their careers. Also subsidized housing. The fact is, those at the top and corporations are not paying a legitimate amount compared to what they earn. I could go on and on about this and how we are collectively getting screwed but I'll leave it their.

Finally healthcare. Health insurance companies are evil monsters. As is the pharmaceutical industry these days. One of them charges you to live and decides who lives and dies while raking in billions and the other creates treatments because there is no money in cures these days. The market incentivizes both of these industries to screw people in the worst way possible and they need to be exterminated. We need a single payer system, and healthcare needs to be a right. In a country as wealthy as the United States it's damn near despicable that this isn't the case. 

[Pali]

On 4/2/2016 at 1:58 PM, Ambroas said:

Bernie is a socialist who wants poor people to get everything for free at the cost of the rich it seems like

Bernie is a social democrat, not a socialist (I really wish he'd stop calling himself one, honestly), who thinks that certain things should be treated as rights guaranteed to all citizens: namely, healthcare and education.  He is advocating Medicare for all - this is a simple expansion of a socialist health insurance program we already use, not actual socialized health care (the govt. wouldn't own the hospitals and employ the doctors, it would simply pay the bills).  He is advocating college education for all who want it.  He is advocating massive infrastructure work, which is badly needed (and the cost of which does nothing but go up the longer we put it off).  He is advocating aggressively acting to stave off the worse possible effects of climate change - we're already past the no bad effects point.

 

Yes.  These things require taxes to be higher.  Dealing with real world problems costs money, and the bigger the problem the more money you need, and we've let our problems get really big because we've consistently not wanted to pay the little extra to deal with them earlier.  But consider what you gain in return for this extra bit of taxes.  Guaranteed health care.  An educated populace.  A rebuilt country.  And I really, really think this last point doesn't get nearly enough attention: the USA's infrastructure is falling apart.  We already need to spend trillions to put it back into decent order.  And like climate change, the longer we go without addressing it, the worse it will get - and it is already costing us in both money and lives.

[Celerity]

My personal issue, and I think many share it, is that things like education, healthcare and (most) infrastructure are not mandates of the federal government. These are all state and local issues.

 

Even if you completely ignore the legal side of things (constitutionality), when the central government gains more money and more power in order to do good for smaller governments, it tends to either spend a lot of money to do a job poorly OR doesn't do the job at all. This could be abroad (look at our efforts trying to micromanage the Iraqi government) and this could be at home (and the list is quite long).

In addition, when those said projects are complete, the central government does not give up its new powers or taxes. These two reasons are the main reasons that the powers and scope of the central government are clearly and purposefully constrained in the constitution.

 

Essentially, the thought is that you don't want the central government to touch anything, much less things you consider critical to our future. Local people can solve local issues much better and cheaply than some politician in D.C.. If you allow the central government to invest in healthcare or education, the costs to both the government and the individual skyrockets. We know this because the central government has been doing this for decades and it is measured. Government Subsidies Enable Price Increases (Education)

By the way, nothing stops people from voluntarily paying more taxes. If tax money is well-spent for the benefit of all, why doesn't anyone opt to pay more? Obviously, the feeling is near-universal that the government does not and cannot manage your money well. You can manage your own money better than they can.

 

Bernie (and any other politician) does not have the master plan for 'fixing' education, healthcare, or just about anything for that matter, even if that said politician could somehow drum up enough support to implement their plan. If politicians had the plan or ability, once in awhile you'd see an issue fixed eventually. That simply doesn't happen--the problems only inflate and get worse, no matter who the president is. That's because the only solution is to opt out and stop trying to fix the problems. Let the market run its course. Government investment is malinvestment by its very nature.

 

Some food for thought: Does Government Spending Bring Prosperity?
 

 

[Vaerick]

The notion of constitutionality in terms of College, Healthcare, and many many other issues is all but moot. The Constitution was written well before any of these things became the critical topics that they are today. Most were farmers back then, and higher education was mostly either law or church, with sciences and other subjects only beginning to grow more prominent. Healthcare, well, hell back then doctors were little more than butchers- not people that can actually help now, and the cost was much different. EPA? Pfft, they never considered cars, much less airplanes, oil spills, emissions and all these other things. Point is, arguing from a point of constitutionality is ripe with problems namely because the constitution was NEVER meant to be frozen document in time. It was designed to evolve based on the needs of the day and age. Just speaking on those three it is clear why they need to be incorporated into law. 

1. College: It's ironic that old people talk shit to young people given the skyrocketing costs of tuition and cost of living. Without an educated workforce we will fall further and further behind, and let me tell you- student loans are a racket. I've actually worked for the government in this industry and it is abominable.

2. Healthcare: This is quite simple on two fronts. First, there is no money in cures, the money is in treatment and so no smart company will ever cure a disease in this day and age. It is interesting to note that Cuba has had several cancer vaccines and treatments that we are just now getting access thanks to Obama finally ending the stupid fight we've been in with them. The second is, scumbag health insurance companies who make money off deciding how to fuck people need to be put to bed. It is disgusting that it has evolved to this point.

3. EPA: Companies are in business to make money, not to look after the people of the country as they have made it crystal clear they don't give a fuck about majority of people. To that effect, how can you not expect them to rape, pillage, and destroy the land only to let poor people stew in the muck they leave behind. We have had rivers catch on fire prior to regulations. 

Problem is, like George Washington warned, the political parties have done more damage to this country than I expect can ever be repaired, and where as there should have been a string of constitutional amendments along the way, they have severely been lacking, largely due to factions and outside influence in the form of campaign donations. 

Local solutions are well and good until the elite with billions of dollars come into play to do what they want to do, because without the Federal Government they can pretty much do what they want. And that leads us to why Bernie is important. Money talks and bullshit walks. I don't care what someone says, there is an age old adage: You don't bite the hand that feeds. So following that and the simple logic of following the money, when you look at each and every candidate you can see who owns them. And the Bernie is the only one solely backed by the people- not by the elite.

[Vaerick]

 Also as for the Reagan-esq analysis that Government investment does no good....

The middle class was built by mass taxes on the wealthy (as high as 90% over 1 million at it's peak) via WWII. Government spending on infastructure and goods for the war. Government subsidies for soldiers coming back for school, houses, healthcare, and many other things. And moreoever it wasn't until Reagan (one of the worst hypocrites who's ever sat the chair) brought about his bs trickle down economics theory that everything started taking a shit on the middle class. And I got news for that too, his contribution to what boosted the economy in that time is much much smaller than people give him credit for. New tech and new demand drove that, not his bullshit plan of give the rich all the money and drop pennies on the poor. Not to mention epic level discrimination in justice. 

[Pali]

" Government investment is malinvestment by its very nature. "

 

I'm sorry, but this is flat out wrong, particularly when it comes to infrastructure spending.  Here is a paper on the economic impact of infrastructure investments, examining both short and long-term effects.  Basic findings: " Estimated Short-Run Effects • In the short-run, a dollar spent on infrastructure construction produces roughly double the initial spending in ultimate economic output. • The biggest effects of infrastructure spending occur in the manufacturing and business services sectors. • In better economic times, spending on infrastructure construction generates a larger return. Yet even in a recession, the overall effects of initial spending still double output as they ripple through the economy. Estimated Long-Run Effects • Over a twenty-year period, generalized ‘public investment’ generates an accumulated $3.21 of economic activity per $1.00 spent. • Over twenty years, investing $1.00 in highways and streets returns approximately $0.35 in tax revenue to federal and state/local governments, of which $0.23 specifically accrues at the federal level. • Over twenty years, investing $1.00 in sewer systems and water infrastructure returns a full $2.03 in tax revenue to federal and state/local governments, of which $1.35 specifically accrues at the federal level."

 

Here is another focusing specifically on highway construction, with similar findings.  Here is another that found a lower multiplier, based upon the timing of the govt. spending.  Here is an abstract (full paper behind paywall) that again found a somewhat lower multiplier, but still a positive gain.  If we want to get speculative, here is another from the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute examining three possible infrastructure investment plans of different sizes and focuses, each expected to provide a net economic gain of half again the initial investment (for instance, the $19 billion plan creates GDP growth of $28 billion).

 

Building a road is not money that is simply spent and vanishes.  The vast majority of the money goes to the construction company and its suppliers and workers, and that money then gets spent again, and again, having a ripple effect.  On top of that, new roads allow new businesses and activities to get started.  Fixing old roads lowers maintenance costs and risk for everyone who drives on them, since potholes bust cars and cause accidents/injuries/deaths.  Fixing sewers means people get sick loss often, that lead poisoning becomes less commonplace, that leaks don't contaminate aquifers and land.

 

Now, if I had the money, I'd be happy to pay for the sewers in my city to be fixed.  But I don't.  So instead, I try to convince people that we need to do this collectively, because most of those people don't have the money individually either.  We get together, we largely agree it needs to be done.  We also largely agree that everyone needs to contribute to it, since everyone will be benefiting from it, and we figure those who can put more towards it should be obliged to do so.  We put some people in charge of the work, so they can focus on it and the rest of us can focus on what we're doing to keep things working.  This process has a name: electing a government. edit: The point here is that I already AM voluntarily paying taxes, because I recognize the value I already get from doing so.  I'd like them to be better managed, sure, and I want better accountability for cheaters.  But even then I'm willing to pay more to help see that things that need doing are done, but individuals do not usually offer greater amounts on their tax returns because doing so on an individual basis is unfair to that individual.  Others must pay their fair shares, because they will benefit as much or more than I will from the results.  So instead of just giving more money on my own (which, it is worth noting, would be insignificant given the scale of the issues), I am proposing that we ALL pay more together so that the issues can be meaningfully addressed.  Me giving more money alone is not only unfair to me, but pointless.

 

EDIT: Also, here is a link to the American Society of Civil Engineers's analysis of the current costs of doing nothing regarding our infrastructure and its current state.  Fixing it is cheaper than doing nothing.

[Pali]

Well, it seems to be solidifying into Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump.  What a lovely election this will be - the poster lady for political corruption vs the ignorant racist megalomaniac.

 

The sad part is that this actually feels representative of my country.

 

[Vaerick]

If they put out Hillary that's a pretty stupid move. The "real" democrats (those who vote straight ticket) will fall in line with whoever the nominee is. But Bernie supporters aren't those people- by and large they are independents- the very people either side needs to carry the win in the general.

So it stacks up like this. They put out Hillary and yeah, they get the straight-ticket dems, but they will lose by and far the vast majority of everyone else. Independents who hate the system will flock to Trump, and those who hate Trump will write in Bernie or sit out the election.

On the other hand, if they put out Bernie, the straight-ticket dems will again fall in line behind the candidate, but this time with the full backing of thousands and millions of non-ticket voters. 

Not even to mention the FBI investigation- which remember, the FBI is not a republican puppet show like Bengahzi was. I imagine if President Obama could have put that shit to rest it would have died long ago, such is in his and the establishments best interest. The fact that it hasn't been put to bed indicates that there is some fire to the smoke, and her only hope is Bernie drops out before the FBI and DOJ come down the pipeline with indictments. Also, to be even more realistic- if she is not indicted, that will hurt her also, in that people will think she is above the law. Time is not on the side of the Clinton camp in this battle.

Just my opinion, but I don't think it's so in the bag for Clinton now anymore than it was six months ago.

[Pali]

I actually agree with most of your analysis.  But I do not think the Democratic Party will give Bernie the nod without him having a lead, or at least near-tie, in delegates, and at this point he's not going to receive that - Hillary's the party favorite, not Bernie, and I think any chances that superdelegates would be the decider would've been in her favor.  The FBI investigation is actually, I think, the only chance we've got of it going to him, and that's assuming that it ever actually comes up with her having done anything criminal - there is a very real possibility that it will end up coming up with nothing, but the FBI wants everyone to think they're doing a fair job so they're taking their time with it and trying to do it right before saying "Nope, no laws broken by Mrs. Clinton that we can find."  Absent FBI charges, I think we're going to be stuck with the Dems nominating Hillary, and I agree that this is a bad move - Bernie is by far the better candidate for the general election.

[Ambroas]

Personally I believe she has broken laws and has already admitted to breaking them.  But even if she is charged most likely Obama will pardon her a few minutes later, no matter what I don't see her ever serving time or being punished for it.  Personally I believe she should be punished in an equivalent manner as Major John Brezler, the Marine who gave a Congressman a classified email in an attempt to warn them of someone.  (For the record the person he warned against had a subordinate kill three Marines who were unarmed in the gym on base in Afghanistan)  Equal punishment for everyone no matter what their political position or bank balance is should be a law set in stone.  Anyways I'm ranting, back to the point.  It will be Hillary vs Trump and I'll be voting for him between the two.

[Vaerick]

I was prepared to vote for Hillary over Trump in the general up until New York rolled around. 120,000 voters purged from Brooklyn? Pfft. Not to mention the serious problems with the exit polls not lining up with counts- many countries use this as a litmus test of sorts for election fraud. The fact that there's dirty business going down, and that it is A. Selectively hurting a singular candidate and B. That she hasn't denounced these events, rather embraced the win like nothing happened doesn't bode well. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. I have several hopes for Sanders still, and all of which are why I believe time is on his side:
1. The FBI investigation- an indictment- even a pardon of such will pretty much sink her legitimacy for a lot of people. 

2.  Dollar for dollar, Bernie is still out raising Clinton, consistently. There's the American dream in politics, and then there's the American Truth. The truth is twofold- money talks and bullshit walks, and you don't bite the hand that feeds. They keep saying that Bernie is done- since the beginning, and people are desensitized to that line, infact it has led Sanders supporters to draw a deeper line in the sand and send in more money, and support him more fervently. To the point where even the media can't ignore it anymore- and let's face it, America loves an under dog. 

3. The super delagates are going to be beholden to power above all other things. Unlike Bernie, Clinton's numbers are falling, and if the trend continues through July they will really have to consider if she is a liability, not only to herself but their own source of power- not only would a dem loss to Trump be as devestating to the dems as it a Trump presidency would be to the republicans, but there is a pretty potent movement that they will have to publicly spurn in order to back Clinton who has increasingly drawn deep against Sanders- recently demanding unconditional support to her, essentially disregarding the fact that he doesn't have only 3% support in the polls anymore. A lot of those super delegates are elected officials who will start seeing the benefit of backing a rising star over a fading one

It will be a tough road, but I believe he is on the right side of history and I also think he will score heavily in Oregon and California. If anything, this election has been a sight to behold. The discontent with the status quo has led to two insurgent candidates who by any normal measure should never have gained the traction they did. On one hand I am more terrified than I've ever been at the concept of a Trump presidency, and on the other hand the Sanders movement, not to mention his donations has given me a little bit more faith in humanity back.

A private theory I've held is that this election for Sanders is kind of like the little engine who could, and it makes me wonder if... the primal message of that story, which almost all millennials will recognize, is really resonating here. "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can..."

[Ambroas]

I think this is one of the reasons Trump has done so well, in addition to people being tired of the quo.  

 

But confused though, from the way I see it Sanders stands no chance now.  Best he can do is keep Hillary below 2,383.  She's at 2,202 needing only 181 more while he sits at 1,400 needing 983.  Problem is they only have 1,163 left and I don't see him dominating that much.  

In Indiana he got 43 to her 37, at that rate he just isn't doing enough.  This ties into my opinions that each state should just be the winner gets the entire state like how some are.  Go by votes only, let every state vote and no damn super delegates who can override the popular vote.

[Vaerick]

Only pledged delegates count until the convention. Media isn't supposed to add super delegates. And they vote based on the needs of the party.  The question is will the needs of the party/country override their loyalty to Clinton. Only time can tell that. 

[Pali]

Unfortunately, in fairness to the superdelegates, right now the needs of the Democratic party/country would also be overriding the majority will of primary voters for that party.

 

I tend to think this is the real problem.  It isn't the superdelegates - it's that the will of the people is going the wrong way on both sides for this election, at least in terms of how the will of the people can be addressed through our current two party system.  The argument can easily be made that closed caucuses, media coverage biases and other issues have "stolen" the Democratic primary from Bernie, that more independents being allowed to vote would've changed things in his favor, but the fact remains that Hillary's got more votes than he does right now - significantly more.  If we're going by the basic democratic principle of "more votes, wins", Hillary is the winner thus far.  In a similar vein, while I've not done the math, I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican race would be a lot closer if fewer of their primaries were winner-take-all, if the media hadn't embraced Trump as a ratings magnet, but even before Kasich and Cruz and a dozen others dropped out, Trump was by far the winner.  Both parties are private entities, allowed to run things the way they've decided to - and the fact that our entire political apparatus runs based on how two private entities decide they want things is a problem we've not really had to deal with so directly until now, when both apparatuses are failing both their respective parties and the best interests of the country as a whole.

[Vaerick]

I agree with that. The parties themselves are the problem. It should be federal mandate that anyone can vote in any primary they choose to cast their vote in. 

As as for Clinton she clearly had the party elite on yher side and the rules in her favor but all that aside I wonder what it would've looked like without all the egregious irregularities in the voting. 

Either er way her arrogance is astounding. The notion that the competition has to bow down and surrender entirely to support her unconditionally with no concessions is insane. Not only is he not really a democrat but neither are the majority of his supporters. If she wants them on her team she has to be the one to reach out as she is the one seeking support. 

Thats the main reason I'm terrified this election because I believe trump will have a solid chance of beating her and then we are really screwed. 

[Ambroas]

I just really don't think we'll be screwed with Trump personally, I'll admit he's not the typical politician but that's one of the main reasons I'm voting for the guy.  I know he isn't a perfect choice but I do agree with a majority of the things he says and it seems a lot of people do.  For the record I'm not even Republican I'm an Independent Conservative, started when I realized that I didn't completely agree with either party, then I realized both are corrupt for the same reasons so I decided to not be in either.  I realize it does seem like I'm in the minority on this discussion but I just think Trump will do much more good than harm as President.  I also believe that he will cause a major impact on these parties and how they're run if he's elected, it'll be obvious to them and to the public that the way they've been doing things is something the populace just isn't willing to stand any longer.  Voting for any of the others is just supporting this major problem for another term.

[KRins]

Until Trump can both build his wall and justify 500 foreign work visas versus 17 domestic workers hired at Mar-a-Lago since 2010, let's never pretend anything he says is or will become reality.  That is just hilariously deluded. 17 domestic workers out of over 300 applications... however it is difficult to find seasonal workers... in Florida.   I won't pretend the rest aren't equally lying or deluded... but you are agreeing with an open and factually proven hypocrite and liar there Ambroas according to statistics.  That is 7.8125 foreign visas applied for every month over that span... while hiring an American worker every 15 weeks or so.  Promised to release 50 job listings to local temp agency after the first time his hypocrisy was exposed... has released exactly 1... since last July.  He loves his captive workforce.  Why would he give that up... given even more power? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/politics/donald-trump-taps-foreign-work-force-for-his-florida-club.html?_r=0

[Vaerick]

Donald Trump is dangerous in many ways, but two of them to me are the most significant.

1. He has a big ego and thin skin- this will not work for diplomacy that can lead to things worse than walking away from the table, ie, war. At best he will make us look like even worse asshats to the rest of the world, and likely through his own hubris will probably cause a great deal of trouble at home, across many topics.

2. He inspires the worst in people. His whole tactics revolve around the use of fear, hatred, and ignorance, and when these three are combined and inflamed within the masses, bad shit happens. Many of the worst examples of human history that can be pointed to are when a leader can sufficiently harness and direct these emotions combined with a distinct lack of understanding. Combine that with his ego, his willingness to use force while at the same time dehumanizing his foes and you have a perfect recipe for fascism. And I know it's the internet, but I don't say that lightly. His traits make him not only not worthy to hold the title but fundamentally dangerous when imbued with power of that magnitude.

Not to mention he is a freaking reality tv star. It's bad enough that kind of "entertainment" has infested and infected the whole of the country but now we will have one of the worst examples as President? 

[Pali]

Out of curiosity, Ambroas, what good do you think Trump will do as president?  I would like specifics here, not generalities along the lines of "making America great again".  Exactly what proposals or his do you think would improve the country?  Are there any you think wouldn't, but they aren't enough to discredit him (and this is a perfectly fair judgment to make of any candidate - I'm a Bernie man, but I don't agree with everything he says either)?  Is it less a matter of the specific proposals, or more a matter of the general approach you think he would bring to things?  The latter I can understand very well, actually, as it forms the basis of my support for Bernie - in my case I also support most of Bernie's more specific proposals, but I also don't think he'd be able to get them passed; I support him because I think he'd be approaching things from the right perspective, not because I actually think he'd get even half of what he's argued for done.

 

Not trying to team up on you or anything, as you seem to be the lone pro-Trump voice while Vaerick and I seem to be largely coming from the same place, but I am sincerely curious as to the specifics of what you think Trump would do in our favor.  As I said, I support Bernie and don't think that he'd be able to get done most of what he wants to either, so I'm not in any position to condemn supporting a candidate for an approach or perspective over specific policies.  The way I see it, no president ever gets the policies they say they want - because our system is specifically set up to deny them that, as it well should.  The greater point is to have a president coming at things from the right angle, and if you think Trump's angle is the right one, I'd love to hear some elaboration as to why, if only so that I can better understand my loyal opposition.

[Ambroas]

Well firstly I'm tired of both parties and believe that as time has gone by both have become so corrupt that I'm not willing to trust any politician.  They don't do it to support America, they do it for money and power.  The fact that they dislike Trump is in itself a reason for me to vote for him.  If the guys that I've disliked for years say someone isn't a good choice I have to wonder is it because he isn't or because he may show how bad they are.  This isn't to say that I trust Trump, years ago I wouldn't even consider voting for they guy.  But in present times I see him as a beacon, not one of hope but one to show the people in D.C. that the masses are tired of how they've been doing things.  Either they fix the way they're doing things or any famous person with enough money and no experience can suddenly jump in a ballot and take their spot.  Hell atleast then if the job is going to be done badly we might get some entertainment out of it.  I don't like his thin skin, unwillingness to compromise and his hatred of loosing.  I hate to loose but his does go a bit too far.  However from the things he says it seems obvious that he is willing to say what he thinks even if it offends groups or parties including his own, I hope that once he's in office he's willing to make those types of decisions as well.  How many times do you think previous presidents have backed down so they didn't step on toes and gone against what they believed was best for America?  At the very least, again I have to state Trump simply being voted in will cause politicians on both sides to reconsider how they're doing their jobs.

1) He will repeal tough gun laws and restrictions: His children are huge gun owners, and as I believe in gun rights I fully support this.  Personally I want to be able to carry my weapon everywhere I go.  I do however want tougher training for conceal carry permit holders, most of what I still follow is from being in the Marines not from the class.

2) He will repeal Obama Care- I'm absolutely for this, I do believe that people with pre-existing conditions should get health care HOWEVER I'm not willing to agree with how Obamacare is set up. Instead of creating a government run health care (because the government has proven it can run programs soooo well like they have welfare) we should have looked at the insurance companies politices and simply made it so that everyone was able to buy into existing policies.  

3) Foreign Policty- I'm not ignorant, I realize his personality is going to hurt us some here however I think he'll do some things that need to be done.  Namely get rid of this nuclear deal with Iran and support Putin in finally destroying ISIS.  This battle has been drug out on purpose in my view and we could have ended it a long time ago if Obama was ever willing to fully commit the military against them.

4) Immigration- He wants to deport all of the illegal immigrants which is something I agree with.  Unlike a few of the other primary candidates said though he's willing to allow them to apply to come to the country legally after they are deported.  I do support the wall plan but think that we also need to up border patrol and give them more permission on deporting and detaining immigrants.

You're all right though, our government is set up so that if the others don't agree with him he'll never do anything and it should be this way.  He may get in and not ever pass one policy and end up like Obama lately just pushing for a few things here and there.  Who knows?  What I do know though is that I'm not willing to trust any politician be they Trump, Hillary, Sanders or whoever so I don't look into any of their policies when they are running.  I look at how they've done in previous political offices in which case Trump has a clean slate and that puts him ahead of the others already.

Now outside of his stated policies my hopes for Trump: I hope he'll pass stricter laws on Welfare.  I don't want to get rid of welfare but in 1996 there was a Welfare reform act that tied one department of welfare to work.  To receive benefits you had to prove you were in job training or actively seeking employment.  This policy was never extended to the other 76 welfare programs but it should be.  Also why can't they be required to to work such as picking up trash, cleaning parks, helping local businesses and such?  Take however much they get divide it by the local minimum wage and require them to work that many hours in a month.  Oh and I also believe that anyone getting any government assistance payments such as Welfare/Food Stamps should require a random drug test.  It isn't invasive, I have to do it for my job why shouldn't they do it as well?

Minimum wage increase: I know I'm not the smartest guy but I just don't think this will do anything good.  It'll shut down small companies and cost jobs mainly.  Also it'll push up wages jobs that are higher paying, require degrees or are jobs such as Paramedic/LPN/Police who barely make over $15 in some areas.  Either the pay for those jobs goes up or people wonder why go to school or risk being shot when they can get the same pay stocking a shelf at Walmart.  I'm not saying these people don't need help I'm just saying a minimum wage hike doesn't seem like a fix to me.  More like shoving a rag in a pipe to stop a leak, it'll fix it for a moment but give it a bit and the water will start flowing again.  I'm hoping that Trump can come up with a different solution to this issue.

 

[Vaerick]

Trump is the kid in class, who when called on by the teacher, starts talking in circles rather than give an answer cause they have no idea what's going on.

I think I'm gonna bow out of this one, because to be quite frank, when I see the rise of Trump I see the eerie parallels to the rise of Fascism in the early-mid 1900's, and quite frankly it is disgusting. When people today ask, "How could Hitler come to power?"  Well, you just gotta look at what's going on now.

Anger, fear, irrational ignorance. A claim of a better time and a promise to make it happen (Make America great again?). Scapegoating (Muslims, Mexicans), a claim to singularly have all the answers, vindictive tendencies- particularly with those who insult him/his notion of what should be, willingness to use and encourage force- particularly against dissention. These are all qualities of Trump, as well as the other notorious Tyrants of past ages. Is Trump for sure going to be as bad as Tyrants in past times? Hard to say, probably not. BUT. Does he display the same traits? ABSOLUTELY!!!

Somehow, and I don't know how it will come to be, but I think we will see Sanders vs Trump in the election. History almost seems to demand it- an honest to God good vs evil fight. I could just be dreaming lol, but I'd really like to see it happen, and the universe, imo, has a sense of humor.

[Ambroas]

In the end honestly I've gotten to where I just don't really care who wins, everyone running for any office that I've ever seen has the "answers" be they democrat, republican, capitalist, socialist, communist or any other belief.  But from what I see the end result is the same, once they get there the money talks and lobbyist end up bending ears and they suddenly have a change.  Take Obama, anyone remember during his campaign he was against gay marriage? There was once a movement named GOOOH that wanted a law that politicians must always vote the way they say they would during their campaign, if they have a change of heart then they announce it during the next campaign.  Seemed like a great law in my eyes.