Let's Face It...Trump is going to Win.

[prideandfall]

The two party system is fine. We have so many checks and balances that whoever is elected things mostly remain the same.

I would suggest that the system being rigged so not much changes despite which party is in power is evidence that our two party system is not "fine".

two quick things:
1. yeah, i agree the system is not fine, that's why i don't vote.
2. nothing much changes on the level of functional governmental bureaucracy, but a LOT can shift in secondary ways such as supreme court appointments or legislative initiatives relating to things like regulation or economic policy.

 

[Trausti]

The two party system is fine. We have so many checks and balances that whoever is elected things mostly remain the same.

I would suggest that the system being rigged so not much changes despite which party is in power is evidence that our two party system is not "fine".

Would you be in favor of sacrificing the current stability if it means the politicians you oppose were more easily able to make great changes?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yes Trump should not be where he is at right now. The fact that he is there shows exactly where WE are. Not sure how it happened because politics were never my thing. Overnight it seemed. Too late to start caring about politics now! Way too late.

If you think this has happened overnight then you haven't been paying attention to what Republican politicians have been saying for years.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I think posters are putting way to much emphasis on the first debate. Obama turned it around in the second and third debates, and the first debate became moot. Moreover, it seems that the next debate is a townhall format which has been Trump's strength.

But that's primarily because Obama greatly underperformed in the first debate. He really wasn't himself. Whereas Trump was pretty much himself in the first debate. What do you see Trump really doing in future debates that will better represent who he is and what, if any, policies he actually has?

Will the town hall questions be provided to Trump beforehand? Because speaking contemporaneously is not one of Trump's strengths. Interacting with voters who aren't clearly his strong supporters wouldn't seem to be his strength either. In the first debate he showed a lot of contempt for people, saying he's smart to not pay taxes, it's good business to root for the housing crisis, to not pay contractors, and take full advantage of bankruptcy laws to his own financial advantage, and for no good reason go after Rosie O'Donnell again. When you're running to be President of the United States, you don't care what some comedians are saying about. Think of all the crazy-ass shit that people were saying about Obama and you didn't see him reacting so personally to it. And then he has the gall to claim that his temperament is a great asset. People in the audience actually chuckled when he said that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I would suggest that the system being rigged so not much changes despite which party is in power is evidence that our two party system is not "fine".

Would you be in favor of sacrificing the current stability if it means the politicians you oppose were more easily able to make great changes?

I would. The entire point of elections is that candidates should go to the people and say that they want to do X, Y and Z. If they win, they should then be able to enact X, Y and Z.

- - - Updated - - -

And then he has the gall to claim that his temperament is a great asset. People in the audience actually chuckled when he said that.

I think that was a bit more than a chuckle. Trump should have reminded them to tip their waitress after such a great comedy routine.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I would. The entire point of elections is that candidates should go to the people and say that they want to do X, Y and Z. If they win, they should then be able to enact X, Y and Z.

That doesn't happen.
There has always been a difference between promising before the elections and what happens after.
"Watch my lips, no new taxes" said Regan who did just that.

 

[Trausti]

I would. The entire point of elections is that candidates should go to the people and say that they want to do X, Y and Z. If they win, they should then be able to enact X, Y and Z.

That doesn't happen.
There has always been a difference between promising before the elections and what happens after.
"Watch my lips, no new taxes" said Regan who did just that.

If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it!

 

[ksen]

I would suggest that the system being rigged so not much changes despite which party is in power is evidence that our two party system is not "fine".

Would you be in favor of sacrificing the current stability if it means the politicians you oppose were more easily able to make great changes?

Would more stuff be likely to burn?

 

[ksen]

I would. The entire point of elections is that candidates should go to the people and say that they want to do X, Y and Z. If they win, they should then be able to enact X, Y and Z.

That doesn't happen.
There has always been a difference between promising before the elections and what happens after.
"Watch my lips, no new taxes" said Regan who did just that.

You mean Bush I.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I would. The entire point of elections is that candidates should go to the people and say that they want to do X, Y and Z. If they win, they should then be able to enact X, Y and Z.

That doesn't happen.
There has always been a difference between promising before the elections and what happens after.
"Watch my lips, no new taxes" said Regan who did just that.

I've noticed that much of what the candidates say they want to do is actually a legislative function. The President may be able to suggest and champion certain laws, but they can't make it happen without Congressional action.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I would. The entire point of elections is that candidates should go to the people and say that they want to do X, Y and Z. If they win, they should then be able to enact X, Y and Z.

That doesn't happen.
There has always been a difference between promising before the elections and what happens after.
"Watch my lips, no new taxes" said Regan who did just that.

And that had a large part to do with why he was fired after his first term. This is as it should be. If they are given a mandate to govern based on promising certain actions on certain issues, they should have the ability to take those actions and be held accountable to the voters if they do not.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I've noticed that much of what the candidates say they want to do is actually a legislative function. The President may be able to suggest and champion certain laws, but they can't make it happen without Congressional action.

Which is why you should move to a parliamentary system where the leader is the head of the largest legislative party and can therefore enact their changes as opposed to the shit-for-brains, patchwork clusterfuck of a government that you're currently stuck with.

 

[Blackclaw]

I've noticed that much of what the candidates say they want to do is actually a legislative function. The President may be able to suggest and champion certain laws, but they can't make it happen without Congressional action.

Which is why you should move to a parliamentary system where the leader is the head of the largest legislative party and can therefore enact their changes as opposed to the shit-for-brains, patchwork clusterfuck of a government that you're currently stuck with.

The problem with parlamentary systems is that to get a majority, the largest legislative party will often ally with tiny wacko parties giving them far more power than their fringe little group should have. Admitedly, with the Republican party degenerating into a wacko party, this might not have as much impact as it used to

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

I think posters are putting way to much emphasis on the first debate. Obama turned it around in the second and third debates, and the first debate became moot. Moreover, it seems that the next debate is a townhall format which has been Trump's strength.

The Townhall debate may turn into an ambush for Hillary. The network(s) have agreed to draw from questions on the Internet. The questions are submitted at a website, and voted on for inclusion. As might be predicted, the "alt-right" and Trumpers have flooded the site and almost ALL the questions asked will favor Trump...here is the top ten:

How will you ensure the 2nd amendment is protected? - 1509 votes
Why are government officials who fail to protect classified info not prosecuted? - 1425 votes
Would you be willing to either repeal or repair/rework the Affordable Care Act? - 1352 votes
Why do we continue to provide aid to countries that are obviously NOT our allies? - 1240 votes
If elected will you secure the border? - 1148 votes
How would you change the tax code to encourage companies to remain in the US? - 1060 votes
Do you support the constitution of the United States as it is written? - 1008 votes
Do you support term limits for Congress? - 981 votes
Globalism, why do you support it or oppose it and why? - 894 votes
What will you do to ensure greater transparency and accountability in government? - 869 votes
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/...or-a-conservative-ambush#sthash.NGhskjSj.dpuf

Securing the border? Globalism? Prosecution of those failing to protect government secrets? Foreign aid? Those issues will put Hillary on the defensive.

Anyway, Trump's 'mo' has never been interrupted except by his own behavior. People are looking for an excuse to get rid of Clinton, and they keep hoping Trump will provide that excuse. He does well when he behaves, and implodes when he does not. It's really outside of Hillary's control.

Therefore, I expect Trump to behave and do well in Debate 2 and 3, and Trumpolini to be our new Presidential overlord.

Trump can't stay on topic, probably doesn't know what the 2nd Amendment is, and probably thinks "globalism" means us taking everybody else's stuff. And I'd love to hear what a candidate who refuses to release tax forms and medical records has to say about "transparency and accountability".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Which is why you should move to a parliamentary system where the leader is the head of the largest legislative party and can therefore enact their changes as opposed to the shit-for-brains, patchwork clusterfuck of a government that you're currently stuck with.

The problem with parlamentary systems is that to get a majority, the largest legislative party will often ally with tiny wacko parties giving them far more power than their fringe little group should have. Admitedly, with the Republican party degenerating into a wacko party, this might not have as much impact as it used to

True, it's far from a perfect system and there are significant flaws with it. My point is that it's just much better than what you have in the US, especially in regards to the current subject matter. While the hope of your system was that the checks and balances by all the various parts of government would lead rich white men of honour and integrity to negotiate in good faith with the various other factions and common-sense solutions that work to the benefit of all. That was clearly a stupid hope and what it mainly does is lead to gridlock and stagnation while everybody tries to outdo everybody else in showing how well they can hold their breath until they turn blue.

A parliamentary system can actually act.

 

[maxparrish]

That doesn't happen.
There has always been a difference between promising before the elections and what happens after.
"Watch my lips, no new taxes" said Regan who did just that.

And that had a large part to do with why he was fired after his first term. This is as it should be. If they are given a mandate to govern based on promising certain actions on certain issues, they should have the ability to take those actions and be held accountable to the voters if they do not.

Bush (Sr.) said "Read my lips, no new taxes", not Reagan.

 

[maxparrish]

I think posters are putting way to much emphasis on the first debate. Obama turned it around in the second and third debates, and the first debate became moot. Moreover, it seems that the next debate is a townhall format which has been Trump's strength.

The Townhall debate may turn into an ambush for Hillary. The network(s) have agreed to draw from questions on the Internet. The questions are submitted at a website, and voted on for inclusion. As might be predicted, the "alt-right" and Trumpers have flooded the site and almost ALL the questions asked will favor Trump...here is the top ten:

How will you ensure the 2nd amendment is protected? - 1509 votes
Why are government officials who fail to protect classified info not prosecuted? - 1425 votes
Would you be willing to either repeal or repair/rework the Affordable Care Act? - 1352 votes
Why do we continue to provide aid to countries that are obviously NOT our allies? - 1240 votes
If elected will you secure the border? - 1148 votes
How would you change the tax code to encourage companies to remain in the US? - 1060 votes
Do you support the constitution of the United States as it is written? - 1008 votes
Do you support term limits for Congress? - 981 votes
Globalism, why do you support it or oppose it and why? - 894 votes
What will you do to ensure greater transparency and accountability in government? - 869 votes
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/...or-a-conservative-ambush#sthash.NGhskjSj.dpuf

Securing the border? Globalism? Prosecution of those failing to protect government secrets? Foreign aid? Those issues will put Hillary on the defensive.

Anyway, Trump's 'mo' has never been interrupted except by his own behavior. People are looking for an excuse to get rid of Clinton, and they keep hoping Trump will provide that excuse. He does well when he behaves, and implodes when he does not. It's really outside of Hillary's control.

Therefore, I expect Trump to behave and do well in Debate 2 and 3, and Trumpolini to be our new Presidential overlord.

Trump can't stay on topic, probably doesn't know what the 2nd Amendment is, and probably thinks "globalism" means us taking everybody else's stuff. And I'd love to hear what a candidate who refuses to release tax forms and medical records has to say about "transparency and accountability".

As these potential questions are publically available, I would expect that THIS TIME his handlers will get him to study and reply with canned responses. Transparency and accountability, if handled correctly, is a setup for and attack on her secret email system and 30K of email erasure, the Clinton Foundation, her refusing to release the transcripts of her speeches to big companies, etc. .

I grant you though, she can use his tax returns and perhaps medical records, but not much else. If he were bright enough, he would point out that his personal privacy rights of tax returns and medical health should not be an issue; reckless government record destruction and influence peddling is an issue.

 

[Elixir]

If he were bright enough, he would point out that his personal privacy rights of tax returns and medical health should not be an issue; reckless government record destruction and influence peddling is an issue.

I've seen it reported (by really good - TREMENDOUS people) that people in the Bush administration used private servers and "lost" millions of emails. If that's true, it should make the matter for which she has already apologized a non-issue. I don't know if it's true, but that's what people - FANTASTIC people really, the BEST people - are saying. The precedent exists for candidates to release tax returns, so if the 'rumor' about the Bush administration proves out, that whole argument could backfire on Trumples.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I hate agreeing with Max. There is something unnatural about, something supernatural about it, like the breaking of seventh seal and the Second Coming

I REALLY hate agreeing with Max as much as I do about the current Presidential election.

Now I am not ready to declare Trump the winner but I gotta say, shit don't look good for Clinton.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think Trump learning not to fly off the handle is even more important than learning policy.

He got some licks in, but HRC got more.