You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 10:19:03 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates [Poll updated!]  (Read 40974 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ArtVandelay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #550 on: December 31, 2015, 11:04:25 PM »
Who are you most likely to vote for (or if you are not voting in the 2016 US elections: Which candidate do you like best?)

I plan to vote for Dr. Rand Paul.

What do you feel are the best qualities and policies of your favorite candidate? Their worst?

Best policies: The flat 14.5% tax, an audit of the federal reserve, and foreign policy of keeping our debt-ridden hands out of foreign conflicts.

Worst: His anti-abortion stance. Rather anti-Liberty, but probably won't get anywhere.

Who is your least favorite candidate and why? Do they have any redeeming qualities and policies?

Bernie Sanders: A demagogue, and generally bad for making "socialism" or crony capitalism seem acceptable to Americans, and basically bribing the young to vote for him for handouts instead of campaigning on real political values. His redeeming quality is lack of understanding in economics, which makes me laugh.

Are you surprised by some of the names who are running? Which ones, and why?

Nope, no surprises here.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #551 on: December 31, 2015, 11:13:41 PM »
Why do you favor a flat tax?

Offline ArtVandelay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #552 on: January 01, 2016, 09:08:36 PM »
Because in a sense, it is most fair. I generally favor a dismantling of the welfare state in exchange for progressive taxation with negative income tax for the genuinely poor, but flat tax with welfare is a good exchange.

The rich still pay more than the poor, in short.


Why do you favor a flat tax?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #553 on: January 01, 2016, 09:19:14 PM »
So you want to fix things by increasing the percentage paid by the poor, and decreasing the percentage paid by the rich?

Offline ArtVandelay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #554 on: January 01, 2016, 09:41:02 PM »
Precisely, because I believe individuals fix society better than any government does. I believe that social activism is more effective and efficient at genuine change, and that inequality is caused by government safety nets more than it is fought by them.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #555 on: January 01, 2016, 09:44:51 PM »
So... how exactly is lowering the meager amount of disposable income already available to the people living paycheck-to-paycheck going to fix this inequality?

Offline ArtVandelay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #556 on: January 01, 2016, 10:00:53 PM »
So... how exactly is lowering the meager amount of disposable income already available to the people living paycheck-to-paycheck going to fix this inequality?

Never said it would! I simply do not think it is the job of any government to treat some citizens different than others, no matter the situation of inequality. Of course, I think one should note that the poor of this country already are granted food stamps, a substantial welfare safety net, etc. The real root of inequality is the restriction on minimum wage: If minimum wage was eliminated, prices could fall to market levels, and in fact people would be able to buy more due to savings. If business was regulated less and allowed to grow, then more poor could be employed and be able to give their children better lives, rather than simply being encouraged to spend with a welfare state. The genuinely "unlucky", or anyone truly unable to find market labor, would be aided by would-be socialists, religious leaders, private charities (most of which are more efficient than government.)

You see, I believe that the government should not be playing the game of economic planning, and that generally regulation and intervention are theft.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #557 on: January 01, 2016, 10:04:32 PM »
I see.  So allowing employers to pay their workers even less is going to make it easier for those same workers to buy things. 

Offline ArtVandelay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #558 on: January 01, 2016, 10:07:13 PM »
As much sarcasm that was dripping with, yes. Prices fall, it's supply and demand in labor markets: Minimum wages create institutionalized unemployment, lack of minimum wage creates employment, increased production at decreased cost, more goods, lower price!

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #559 on: January 01, 2016, 10:38:22 PM »
You say that regulation is 'theft'.  Can you name a country where a completely unregulated market has been successful?

Offline ArtVandelay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #560 on: January 01, 2016, 10:46:42 PM »
Naming a country that has had a truly unregulated market shall be far harder: the ills of government are everywhere! The gilded age, which authoritarians love to cite as a failure of lasseiz-faire policy, was actually caused by government subsidization of business, crony capitalism.

Offline Merah

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #561 on: January 02, 2016, 12:01:36 AM »
Let me get this straight... NO minimum wage? You support allowing the rich to force the poor to work for starvation wages?

There is no incentive for corporations to allow their profits to 'trickle-down' to employees who are unfortunate enough to be considered unskilled or replaceable. But by all means, let's go back to the days of factory wage slavery, of child labor and horrendous workplace safety! Ah the good old days, before all that pesky authoritarian government regulation!!!

Offline ArtVandelay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #562 on: January 02, 2016, 08:57:34 AM »
Let me get this straight... NO minimum wage? You support allowing the rich to force the poor to work for starvation wages?

There is no incentive for corporations to allow their profits to 'trickle-down' to employees who are unfortunate enough to be considered unskilled or replaceable. But by all means, let's go back to the days of factory wage slavery, of child labor and horrendous workplace safety! Ah the good old days, before all that pesky authoritarian government regulation!!!


I would appreciate a little respect for my opinions. I have them, everyone has them, and mine are motivated on what is economically justified, not what makes me seem so good and liberal.

Now, you forget simple supply and demand! Workers can unionize, band together, and generally less will work if wages decrease. If there are 500 shoe manufacturers who need shoes made, then each factory will one-up the other to get more workers until a market wage is reached. Economists agree, the absence of a minimum wage helps the workers who make it, in the long run! Can you imagine the mass rioting, the strikes that would (and should!) occur if wages weren't enough! And don't start talking to me about the gilded age what-not, because it was entirely government supported artificial power to industry!

Wages down, prices down, buying power of poor up!

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #563 on: January 02, 2016, 10:10:53 AM »

Economists agree, the absence of a minimum wage helps the workers who make it, in the long run!

Someone should tell economists that. They seem to think they don't know.http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_e9vyBJWi3mNpwzj

Further...hmmmm. People seem to hold economic efficiency as some sort of lofty ideal. Like, efficient markets are a goal in themselves. It's an attitude I've never fully understood. Let's assume, hypothetically, that humanity had a perfect understanding of the interplay of the various factors that combine to make markets would. Whether we could ever do that is debatable but let's handwave that question.

It would still not be clear that maximising market efficiency was the best thing to do. Economics are a tool, not a goal. I can use economic theory to make some sort of liberal utopia, I can use it to make the other. It's got to be subservient to human desires though. "This is how to use economic theory to get what I want" has to be a better position than "This is how to change what I want in order to maximise a number on a graph."

Not sure how well I put that. Also, apologies for lack of direct link, on my phone and hard to do.

Offline ArtVandelay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #564 on: January 02, 2016, 10:20:34 AM »
This is an argument unwinnable by either of us! I argue that because markets are the product of individual desires, they are most efficient when all individual desires are allocated efficiently. I caution you to believe that using the economy as a tool will satisfy the desires of some; without the businessman, the poor worker is left to absolute poverty or little economi mobility. This is another trend; poor either are moderately secure and stay poor, or are left to worse conditions and become mobile. However, you do not seem to think that efficiency is the best for humanity, yet indeed, it cuts out waste and thus saves money! Anyhow, I'm tired of arguing, as we inherently value different things: You, Equity, I, Liberty.

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #565 on: January 02, 2016, 10:44:58 AM »
Now, you forget simple supply and demand! Workers can unionize, band together, and generally less will work if wages decrease. If there are 500 shoe manufacturers who need shoes made, then each factory will one-up the other to get more workers until a market wage is reached. Economists agree, the absence of a minimum wage helps the workers who make it, in the long run! Can you imagine the mass rioting, the strikes that would (and should!) occur if wages weren't enough! And don't start talking to me about the gilded age what-not, because it was entirely government supported artificial power to industry!

Wages down, prices down, buying power of poor up!

Except shoes aren't being made here.  Manufacturing is being shipped overseas to countries where minimum wage is nil in comparison to the US (if there is one at all), where environmental regulations largely don't exist (Beijing is covered in a cloud of smog so thick you can see it from space), and where workers are willing to put in 12-hour days for coins in their pocket and a song.  It's largely agreed today that the US economy is based around service, not manufacturing.  And this decision wasn't made on a whim - it was made entirely rationally and logically, which is the real diabolic thing about it.

As for unions?  Take a look at Scott Walker and Wisconsin, and then also the McDonald's protests.  If a union exists for a profession, the captains of industry are trying to break it up - if it doesn't exist, then they try and keep it from being.  Quite simply put, a union doesn't exist to serve the needs of the company - it exists to serve the needs of the people who work for that company.  And the people up at the top have determined that a union hurts their profit margin, so it has to go.

As for wages?  They already aren't enough.  More people than ever are on government assistance - food stamps, housing, health care - and the private sector sees no reason for their personal gravy train to stop.  But at the same time, a good number of the people who represent corporate interests in Congress simultaneously call for reduced government assistance spending and lower minimum wages.  It can't be both ways.  To paraphrase Bill Maher - if Colonel Sanders isn't going to pay its workers a living wage, then Uncle Sam has to make up the shortfall.

Prices?  It's always been within the power of the industry to set prices.  The common argument against raising the minimum wage is that prices will just go up, so why bother raising it?  I think it would be very telling to ask those same people, "well, if we decrease wages, then prices will go down, right?"

I would imagine the silence after that question would be nothing short of deafening.  Because I have a hunch that prices wouldn't go down if wages decrease.  They would stay right where they are.  Because it is the industry's prerogative to set prices.  Take McD's.  A basic cheeseburger costs a dollar and change, and the current federal wage is $7.25 an hour.  Let's say that number goes up to...$12 an hour.  (Not quite the $15 they want, but better than now.)  That cheeseburger can still cost that dollar and change.  The difference is that the profit margin of McD's will decrease.  The whole argument about raising prices in response to raising wages is based on the assumption that profit remains the same.  But it doesn't have to.  Profit, and the quest for it, is overemphasized in our corporate culture today - the more profit you make, the more successful you are.  Or so the common perception goes.

That isn't true in the slightest.  A company that makes $1000 in profit is just as successful as one that makes $1000000 in profit, or one that makes $1000000000 profit.  But we've become convinced - or at least, an influential portion of us - that money is the measure of success.  Not a measure, the measure - the only one that matters.

Industry needs to be reigned in.  Industry needs to understand that its welfare is dependent on the welfare of the people who make it - the secretaries and line workers, not the besuited persons of the boardroom.  If people do not possess the power to buy something, then they won't buy it.  And what that starts is basically an economic 'death spiral.'

Offline ArtVandelay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #566 on: January 02, 2016, 11:00:29 AM »
Except shoes aren't being made here.  Manufacturing is being shipped overseas to countries where minimum wage is nil in comparison to the US (if there is one at all), where environmental regulations largely don't exist (Beijing is covered in a cloud of smog so thick you can see it from space), and where workers are willing to put in 12-hour days for coins in their pocket and a song.  It's largely agreed today that the US economy is based around service, not manufacturing.  And this decision wasn't made on a whim - it was made entirely rationally and logically, which is the real diabolic thing about it.

As for unions?  Take a look at Scott Walker and Wisconsin, and then also the McDonald's protests.  If a union exists for a profession, the captains of industry are trying to break it up - if it doesn't exist, then they try and keep it from being.  Quite simply put, a union doesn't exist to serve the needs of the company - it exists to serve the needs of the people who work for that company.  And the people up at the top have determined that a union hurts their profit margin, so it has to go.

As for wages?  They already aren't enough.  More people than ever are on government assistance - food stamps, housing, health care - and the private sector sees no reason for their personal gravy train to stop.  But at the same time, a good number of the people who represent corporate interests in Congress simultaneously call for reduced government assistance spending and lower minimum wages.  It can't be both ways.  To paraphrase Bill Maher - if Colonel Sanders isn't going to pay its workers a living wage, then Uncle Sam has to make up the shortfall.

Prices?  It's always been within the power of the industry to set prices.  The common argument against raising the minimum wage is that prices will just go up, so why bother raising it?  I think it would be very telling to ask those same people, "well, if we decrease wages, then prices will go down, right?"

I would imagine the silence after that question would be nothing short of deafening.  Because I have a hunch that prices wouldn't go down if wages decrease.  They would stay right where they are.  Because it is the industry's prerogative to set prices.  Take McD's.  A basic cheeseburger costs a dollar and change, and the current federal wage is $7.25 an hour.  Let's say that number goes up to...$12 an hour.  (Not quite the $15 they want, but better than now.)  That cheeseburger can still cost that dollar and change.  The difference is that the profit margin of McD's will decrease.  The whole argument about raising prices in response to raising wages is based on the assumption that profit remains the same.  But it doesn't have to.  Profit, and the quest for it, is overemphasized in our corporate culture today - the more profit you make, the more successful you are.  Or so the common perception goes.

That isn't true in the slightest.  A company that makes $1000 in profit is just as successful as one that makes $1000000 in profit, or one that makes $1000000000 profit.  But we've become convinced - or at least, an influential portion of us - that money is the measure of success.  Not a measure, the measure - the only one that matters.

Industry needs to be reigned in.  Industry needs to understand that its welfare is dependent on the welfare of the people who make it - the secretaries and line workers, not the besuited persons of the boardroom.  If people do not possess the power to buy something, then they won't buy it.  And what that starts is basically an economic 'death spiral.'

Shoes were an example. Moving to your next point...

China has government-funded corruption and low wages.

Unions cannot, legally speaking, simply be "broken up" by some big monster corporation. They can exist, and generally allow bargaining power. Corporations can persuade workers not to join, and that's fine!

Look, the simple fact of the matter is that I don't believe Uncle Sam should pick up the tab, because it is working against the freedom of the free market. You overestimate the price setting power of corporations and the profit margins they truly receive. Profit is good! It means more money back into economies, economies of scale, growth. McDonalds, if workers were paid $15, would have reduced money to grow, and workers would be phased out for computer screens. Hamburgers could easily be $.50 if wages were allowed to fall to equilibrium, and so the common man would have more buying power. As for food stamps, the welfare state-all it does is give the poor no reason to move up! It keeps the poor static and makes more voters for Democrats.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #567 on: January 02, 2016, 11:14:21 AM »
Ah... not to seem like I'm ignoring the last few posts, but I have comments on the candidates in general. >.>

The GOP debates have been fascinating. Watching the entire GOP slide further and further to the right on social policy while edging down the slope toward tax-and-spend has been a little bit painful. When Rand Paul asserts over and over that he's the only fiscal conservative on the stage, I'm inclined to agree with him.

In fact, much of what Rand Paul has said in various debates has made the most sense. It's weird when he seems like the sanest one on the stage. It's only because the GOP debates have been very heavily focused on foreign policy - he would sound a lot less sane if we started talking about domestic policies. Still. It's weird.

Cruz's increasingly shrill rhetoric made the last debate feel like there were two Trumps on the stage. Meanwhile, I kept waiting for Bush to burst out with "I've had about enough of you, Donald!" and lead Trump out by his ear.

The entire world would be better off if they would just permanently cut Fiorina's mic. Yuck.

The GOP debates are like night and day compared to the Dem debates. There are some very passionate people on the Dem stage, but they seem to be largely repeating each other. Clinton and Sanders have largely similar ratings on Politifact for truthfulness last I checked, which I find a little disturbing. I have a hard time trusting Clinton. I think she makes all the right mouthnoises but I don't think she wants to make the country better. I think she just wants to be the first female president. I don't like it. I find Sanders to be a better option, but I think a lot of his followers view him through rosy glasses.

I don't understand how O'Malley though he had a snowball's chance with liberals after the crapstorm in Baltimore this year. I mean, really? He needs to drop out.

Then again, so do about nineteen of the GOP candidates, so...

Offline Ebb

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #568 on: January 02, 2016, 11:57:40 AM »
It's a trivial issue, but you can't get much lower than rooting against your alma mater in the Rose Bowl just to pander to Iowa voters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/01/carly-fiorina-just-brought-political-pandering-to-a-whole-new-level/

Nice going, Ms. Fiorina.


Also, the minimum wage and flat tax discussions would probably be better served by splitting them off into a separate thread or two, leaving this one for discussion of the candidates. As far as I'm aware, in this election cycle no candidate has strongly proposed either a flat tax or abolishing the minimum wage. Jeb Bush appeared to do the latter back in March, but his campaign walked it back.


Offline ArtVandelay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #569 on: January 02, 2016, 12:45:36 PM »
Ah... not to seem like I'm ignoring the last few posts, but I have comments on the candidates in general. >.>

The GOP debates have been fascinating. Watching the entire GOP slide further and further to the right on social policy while edging down the slope toward tax-and-spend has been a little bit painful. When Rand Paul asserts over and over that he's the only fiscal conservative on the stage, I'm inclined to agree with him.

In fact, much of what Rand Paul has said in various debates has made the most sense. It's weird when he seems like the sanest one on the stage. It's only because the GOP debates have been very heavily focused on foreign policy - he would sound a lot less sane if we started talking about domestic policies. Still. It's weird.

Cruz's increasingly shrill rhetoric made the last debate feel like there were two Trumps on the stage. Meanwhile, I kept waiting for Bush to burst out with "I've had about enough of you, Donald!" and lead Trump out by his ear.

The entire world would be better off if they would just permanently cut Fiorina's mic. Yuck.

The GOP debates are like night and day compared to the Dem debates. There are some very passionate people on the Dem stage, but they seem to be largely repeating each other. Clinton and Sanders have largely similar ratings on Politifact for truthfulness last I checked, which I find a little disturbing. I have a hard time trusting Clinton. I think she makes all the right mouthnoises but I don't think she wants to make the country better. I think she just wants to be the first female president. I don't like it. I find Sanders to be a better option, but I think a lot of his followers view him through rosy glasses.

I don't understand how O'Malley though he had a snowball's chance with liberals after the crapstorm in Baltimore this year. I mean, really? He needs to drop out.

Then again, so do about nineteen of the GOP candidates, so...

Do I sense another Rand Paul supporter in my midst?

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #570 on: January 02, 2016, 12:53:00 PM »
It's a trivial issue, but you can't get much lower than rooting against your alma mater in the Rose Bowl just to pander to Iowa voters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/01/carly-fiorina-just-brought-political-pandering-to-a-whole-new-level/

Nice going, Ms. Fiorina.

I didn't know this, but it doesn't surprise me. Whenever she starts talking during debates, I take it as my cue to get up and go to the bathroom or something. She makes me cringe, she has no viable policies, she's a complete warhawk, she has no political experience, and she has a dismal corporate record. She needs to just ... go away. Please. Please.

Also, the minimum wage and flat tax discussions would probably be better served by splitting them off into a separate thread or two, leaving this one for discussion of the candidates. As far as I'm aware, in this election cycle no candidate has strongly proposed either a flat tax or abolishing the minimum wage. Jeb Bush appeared to do the latter back in March, but his campaign walked it back.

The flat tax thing has been punted around. I thought it was part of Ben Carson's platform for a while, but I could be wrong. I agree that the discussion about minimum wage and flat tax would probably be better served in another thread.

Do I sense another Rand Paul supporter in my midst?

... no.  :-)

Offline ArtVandelay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #571 on: January 02, 2016, 01:18:35 PM »
Paul has a 14.5% flat tax as a hallmark of his plan.

Offline BlytheTopic starter

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #572 on: January 02, 2016, 01:55:13 PM »
*wince*

I suspect O'Malley will have to drop from the race in the next couple of months; not getting on the Ohio ballot doesn't bode well. :/

Offline consortium11

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #573 on: January 03, 2016, 12:52:23 AM »
It's only because the GOP debates have been very heavily focused on foreign policy

As they should.

It's often forgotten about in the excitement of campaign promises and how each Presidential candidate says they're going to change the country but the President actually has pretty limited domestic powers, at least in comparison to their power in foreign policy. Most obviously in domestic terms a President still needs both houses on side (although more and more are using executive orders as a way to get around that constitutional requirement) and then still faces governors, states and the various courts. But in foreign policy terms? It may not quite be a carte blanche to do what they want, but it isn't far off one.

The single most important point when assessing a presidential candidate should be judging their foreign policy position. Their domestic approach might be enough to sway you one way or the other when two candidates are roughly equal on foreign policy but it shouldn't be the biggest factor. To use Obama as an example how many of the big domestic issues he campaigned on has he been able to implement... and implement in the way he originally set them out? Obamacare went from a universal single-payer system to the odd hybrid it currently is because Obama didn't have the power to put what he originally wanted through the houses.

This actually speaks to a wider point and one that has been noted before; the poor strategic use of Democrat activism. Far too often they see their goal as being the Presidency alone and so are willing to put a huge amount of enthusiasm, energy and time (to say nothing of money) into campaigning for it. But once the presidential election is over (and especially if the Democrat has won) they go home and don't really bother with other elections... be they for Congress, governors or at a state level... and it's one of the reasons that the Republicans currently control both houses. If you want domestic change than simply electing a President isn't enough.

Offline ArtVandelay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #574 on: January 03, 2016, 01:34:28 AM »
As they should.

It's often forgotten about in the excitement of campaign promises and how each Presidential candidate says they're going to change the country but the President actually has pretty limited domestic powers, at least in comparison to their power in foreign policy. Most obviously in domestic terms a President still needs both houses on side (although more and more are using executive orders as a way to get around that constitutional requirement) and then still faces governors, states and the various courts. But in foreign policy terms? It may not quite be a carte blanche to do what they want, but it isn't far off one.

The single most important point when assessing a presidential candidate should be judging their foreign policy position. Their domestic approach might be enough to sway you one way or the other when two candidates are roughly equal on foreign policy but it shouldn't be the biggest factor. To use Obama as an example how many of the big domestic issues he campaigned on has he been able to implement... and implement in the way he originally set them out? Obamacare went from a universal single-payer system to the odd hybrid it currently is because Obama didn't have the power to put what he originally wanted through the houses.

This actually speaks to a wider point and one that has been noted before; the poor strategic use of Democrat activism. Far too often they see their goal as being the Presidency alone and so are willing to put a huge amount of enthusiasm, energy and time (to say nothing of money) into campaigning for it. But once the presidential election is over (and especially if the Democrat has won) they go home and don't really bother with other elections... be they for Congress, governors or at a state level... and it's one of the reasons that the Republicans currently control both houses. If you want domestic change than simply electing a President isn't enough.

I think you're correct if you're thinking about sheer power grabbing. Although I will say that you sound a bit dictatorial! Obamacare, and generally his domestic policy, has been the product of a thing I prefer to call democracy. The compromise between the two parties, and the repeated blocking of bills by the Republican majority are all caused by the democratic process.

Now, activism is something I think you have highlighted that is often misused, but look at the misguided nature of many grass-roots campaigns in the practical political sense: Trump has received much of his funds from the white working class, who perhaps feels minorities, Democrats, politicians, and immigrants are stealing his rightful slice of the pie. Yet Trump has many problematic ideals because he's a demagogue, preying on populist ideals to get elected. Mr. Sanders is the same way, with his unrealistic ideas that (according to most unbiased, non Huffington related sources) would be very bad for the country, the economy, and most likely force McDonalds to finally automate. Boo hoo for the 16 year old cashier. But, my slamming aside, the "activists" of college students that didn't take Econ 101 and aren't getting paid enough for their liberal arts degree is just that: an emotion of a small but vocal portion of the population. Politics are ugly, and the majority of Americans truly don't want to deal with it.