Elections 2016 Presidential Election General Discussion v2

[AnGrYcRoW]

Ladies and gentlemen, your next president of the great United States of America. Mr. Donald J Trump! Fighting for the soul of our nation, one huge crowd at a time. The legendary businessman speaks in front of a raucous Akron Ohio jampacked group of thousands and thousands!

I like the part where he says he is going to have massive tax cuts across the board and then initiate an FDR level of infrastructure rebuilding .....

 

[Lead]

I like the part where he says he is going to have massive tax cuts across the board and then initiate an FDR level of infrastructure rebuilding .....

Balanced budgets matter as long we don't need to account for tax breaks or war in them.

I do think spending neglects long term investment like infrastructure far too much for short term spending like entitlements or actual long term liabilities like war. I always felt like the GOP strayed after Eisenhower with their message. At no time today could you expect a republican to propose a project as beneficial and massive as the interstate highway system under the governments tab.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Clinton Should Say No to Obama's Lame Duck TPP Trade Vote

U.S. News & World Report
Pat Garofalo 3 days ago

For all the oxygen currently being sucked out of the room by the 2016 presidential campaign, there is still an incumbent administration with a country to run – and it's setting up an intraparty fight that could take place even before the next president is sworn in.

It's looking increasingly likely that the Obama administration is going to push for a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership during a lame duck session of Congress following Election Day. Known as the TPP, this is the 12-nation trade deal that has become a lightning rod this year thanks to the efforts of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former reality television star Donald Trump, among others. President Barack Obama has made the pact a centerpiece of his agenda while he remains in office, and the administration is setting up events across the country to make the case for it.

"Right now, I'm president and I'm for it," Obama said recently. "And I think I've got the better argument." Progressive groups, meanwhile, are already making noise about preventing a lame-duck vote on the deal.

This, of course, puts Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in a tight spot. She was once for the deal before coming out against it during the primary campaign; her current line is, "I oppose it now, I'll oppose it after the election and I'll oppose it as president."

The left, though, wants an ironclad promise that Clinton will not only be against the pact generally, but will be openly and vocally against a lame-duck session vote on it. Even if it means standing against a popular president of the same party, they want Clinton to put the kibosh on any talk of the trade deal passing, now and forevermore.

At this point, there's little reason for Clinton not to provide such a promise. Back when Sanders and Clinton were negotiating over the language of their party's platform, I felt that the Clinton camp was making a strategic error in not letting Team Sanders have its way, and the same dynamic still holds today: The upsides of the pact are too small to make dealing with the political downsides worthwhile.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...to-obamas-lame-duck-tpp-trade-vote/ar-BBvPAiU


_______________________________________________________________________________


It isn't enough for Hillary Clinton to state she is against this trade deal, as the presidential nominee. She must use her bully pulpit to actively campaign against it, or every thinking person needs to recognize that she is lying about her support for TPP.

If she is against TPP, she must actively campaign against it, and say over and over that Obama is wrong on this trade deal.

If Clinton doesn't, then know she is lying to you when she says she doesn't support TPP. She is trying to have her cake and eat it too, by publicly stating she doesn't support it, while using none of her bully pulpit to oppose it.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

She is a filthy fibber and a world class panderer who obviously supports TPP... she will flipflop more on trade than she does on certain Nuclear policies...

but, it wont cost her the election, at least not on the left as the majority of people on the left who are familiar about TPP, support it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hmm. So Obama wants a bill that is A) favored by most people who have an opinion on it and B) not considered a major issue by hardly anyone to get voted on, and this is going to cost Clinton seven points or so? We'll see, I guess...

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I agree. Most Americans agree that TPP is a good thing last I checked.

 

[Hans Gruber]

Clinton Should Say No to Obama's Lame Duck TPP Trade Vote

U.S. News & World Report
Pat Garofalo 3 days ago

For all the oxygen currently being sucked out of the room by the 2016 presidential campaign, there is still an incumbent administration with a country to run – and it's setting up an intraparty fight that could take place even before the next president is sworn in.

It's looking increasingly likely that the Obama administration is going to push for a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership during a lame duck session of Congress following Election Day. Known as the TPP, this is the 12-nation trade deal that has become a lightning rod this year thanks to the efforts of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former reality television star Donald Trump, among others. President Barack Obama has made the pact a centerpiece of his agenda while he remains in office, and the administration is setting up events across the country to make the case for it.

"Right now, I'm president and I'm for it," Obama said recently. "And I think I've got the better argument." Progressive groups, meanwhile, are already making noise about preventing a lame-duck vote on the deal.

This, of course, puts Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in a tight spot. She was once for the deal before coming out against it during the primary campaign; her current line is, "I oppose it now, I'll oppose it after the election and I'll oppose it as president."

The left, though, wants an ironclad promise that Clinton will not only be against the pact generally, but will be openly and vocally against a lame-duck session vote on it. Even if it means standing against a popular president of the same party, they want Clinton to put the kibosh on any talk of the trade deal passing, now and forevermore.

At this point, there's little reason for Clinton not to provide such a promise. Back when Sanders and Clinton were negotiating over the language of their party's platform, I felt that the Clinton camp was making a strategic error in not letting Team Sanders have its way, and the same dynamic still holds today: The upsides of the pact are too small to make dealing with the political downsides worthwhile.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...to-obamas-lame-duck-tpp-trade-vote/ar-BBvPAiU


_______________________________________________________________________________


It isn't enough for Hillary Clinton to state she is against this trade deal, as the presidential nominee. She must use her bully pulpit to actively campaign against it, or every thinking person needs to recognize that she is lying about her support for TPP.

If she is against TPP, she must actively campaign against it, and say over and over that Obama is wrong on this trade deal.

If Clinton doesn't, then know she is lying to you when she says she doesn't support TPP. She is trying to have her cake and eat it too, by publicly stating she doesn't support it, while using none of her bully pulpit to oppose it.

She is probably hoping Obama goes for it so she doesn't have to flip flop again. She can keep pretending she is against it

 

[VivaRevolution]

Throw out some poll ideas and I will add one in a bit.

I wish you wouldn't have dumped my Obama/Clinton/TPP thread in here.

It was multi-fold enough to stand on it's own merit.

Edit: probably my fault I guess for putting Clinton and the election in the thread title.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I agree. Most Americans agree that TPP is a good thing last I checked.

 

[VivaRevolution]

She is probably hoping Obama goes for it so she doesn't have to flip flop again. She can keep pretending she is against it

This has been the plan all along, publicly oppose it, while doing nothing in the background to actually try and stop it.

I hope Bernie, Warren, and Trump beat her to death with this.

 

[Lead]

I wish you wouldn't have dumped my Obama/Clinton/TPP thread in here.

It was multi-fold enough to stand on it's own merit.

Edit: probably my fault I guess for putting Clinton and the election in the thread title.

The "why this person will win/lose threads" are almost always getting moved here since it really is just the same discussion with each person making the op their opinion. Keeps the forum tidy. There definitely is room for a TPP thread. Apologies if you saw a significant enough distinction

 

[m52nickerson]

It's not.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-favor-tpp-but-less-than-other-countries-do/

 

[Jack V Savage]

Balanced budgets matter as long we don't need to account for tax breaks or war in them.

I do think spending neglects long term investment like infrastructure far too much for short term spending like entitlements or actual long term liabilities like war. I always felt like the GOP strayed after Eisenhower with their message. At no time today could you expect a republican to propose a project as beneficial and massive as the interstate highway system under the governments tab.

And pretty much since Reagan (exception with Bush 41), they abandoned any serious attempt to balance budgets. They still talk about balanced budgets being good, but every actual proposal would result in much higher deficits--even everything Ryan has proposed, and that's supposed to be his big issue. In one of the debates, Rubio talked about deficits being some kind of existential threat, but his proposal would have increased them by unprecedented amounts.

 

[Quipling]

The "why this person will win/lose threads" are almost always getting moved here since it really is just the same discussion with each person making the op their opinion. Keeps the forum tidy. There definitely is room for a TPP thread. Apologies if you saw a significant enough distinction

Personally, I'd be interested in a Trump scandal and Clinton scandal megathread, so that the endless nothingburger threads on emails or Trump insults or what-have-you can be combined.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Earlier it was posted that 30% of Trump's campaign expenditures were being paid to his own businesses. Now that he's spending money from his donors, he just bought 55000 copies of his book and quintupled the amount of rent he's charging his campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-rent_us_57bba424e4b03d51368a82b9?o9ix30du10s5rk9
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-rent_us_57bba424e4b03d51368a82b9?o9ix30du10s5rk9
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-55-000-of-his-own-book.html?via=twitter_page

 

[Jack V Savage]

Earlier it was posted that 30% of Trump's campaign expenditures were being paid to his own businesses. Now that he's spending money from his donors, he just bought 55000 copies of his book and quintupled the amount of rent he's charging his campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-rent_us_57bba424e4b03d51368a82b9?o9ix30du10s5rk9
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-55-000-of-his-own-book.html?via=twitter_page

To be fair, I think he did significantly upgrade the office. Not quintupled rent for the same space.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I'm not sure how any layperson can have a really strong opinion on the tpp.
I haven't noticed either ringing endorsements or scathing criticisms from qualified economist types. Just a lot of ambiguity (which in itself might be enough reason to oppose the bill, but not so severely).
What am I missing?

 

[sickc0d3r]

Earlier it was posted that 30% of Trump's campaign expenditures were being paid to his own businesses. Now that he's spending money from his donors, he just bought 55000 copies of his book and quintupled the amount of rent he's charging his campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-rent_us_57bba424e4b03d51368a82b9?o9ix30du10s5rk9
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-55-000-of-his-own-book.html?via=twitter_page

Christmas is right around the corner...

 

[Fawlty]

he just bought 55000 copies of his book and quintupled the amount of rent he's charging his campaign.

Jesus fucking Christ.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Personally, I'd be interested in a Trump scandal and Clinton scandal megathread, so that the endless nothingburger threads on emails or Trump insults or what-have-you can be combined.

There should also just be a single propaganda dump thread for Hans.