US General Election Megathread: Trump vs Clinton

[Yumyumsuppertime]

My mom was talking about how she still finds spiteful Clinton supporters, and a bunch of them gloating about Clinton winning over Sanders. Hardcore supporters just suck in general.

Oh, yeah, I have a large number of friends on my FB feed who were with her from the beginning, and while (nearly) all of them have been thoroughly decent and respectful through the process, some of their friends are totally insufferable now, calling Sanders ego-driven, a fool, senile, and an instigator of violence against women. Fortunately, they seem to be the minority, and the candidate herself is being totally civil.

[Maurepas]

My mom was talking about how she still finds spiteful Clinton supporters, and a bunch of them gloating about Clinton winning over Sanders. Hardcore supporters just suck in general.

I've been accused of everything from incompetent shill to responsible for the deaths of thousands or more. In the end Kreia of KOTORII fame I think had the best quote in this regard, "To believe in an ideal is to be willing to betray it."

At least with regard to the feelings of the hardcore.

[Corrian]

Even I've been called a "Paid Clinton shill"......

[Freefall11111]

I'm happy with these developments. The things they rejected were things I wasn't necessarily on board with per se, and the ones they did I think were the more significant part of Sanders campaign. I think this is a good platform to go on:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation ... story.html

Minimum wage increase and no carbon tax? 0/10.

[Neutraligon]

I'm happy with these developments. The things they rejected were things I wasn't necessarily on board with per se, and the ones they did I think were the more significant part of Sanders campaign. I think this is a good platform to go on:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation ... story.html

Sanders posted this earlier, too, so he must be somewhat satisfied.

Seems like a good compromise platform.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Even I've been called a "Paid Clinton shill"......

As have I, when I posted Snopes links to refute attacks on her that had their origins in right-wing smear campaigns from the 90s.

[Corrian]

Even I've been called a "Paid Clinton shill"......

As have I, when I posted Snopes links to refute attacks on her that had their origins in right-wing smear campaigns from the 90s.

.......

I even shared a Politifact one once and they talked about how it had a "Clinton bias"

[Freefall11111]

It beggars belief that the party accepted the minimum wage increase but not the carbon tax.

Or maybe I shouldn't be surprised given that the former is easier to sell as good for the poor.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

As have I, when I posted Snopes links to refute attacks on her that had their origins in right-wing smear campaigns from the 90s.

.......

I even shared a Politifact one once and they talked about how it had a "Clinton bias"

Yeah, sounds about right. We're all subject to confirmation bias to some degree or another, but there are those of each and every political stance who treat it as an art.

[Neutraligon]

Even I've been called a "Paid Clinton shill"......

As have I, when I posted Snopes links to refute attacks on her that had their origins in right-wing smear campaigns from the 90s.

Funny enough I was called a Trumppette for posting something that showed Trump did not take a position someone said he did (considering how many times he has flip flopped it would not have been a surprise had he taken the position but he had not). I can't remember what it was I posted but I must say being called a Trumppette was a bit of a surprise

[Neutraligon]

It beggars belief that the party accepted the minimum wage increase but not the carbon tax.

Or maybe I shouldn't be surprised given that the former is easier to sell as good for the poor.

Apparently it was by narrow margin, and I can understand them not supporting it, as that is something the party is more divided on. That being said maybe they should have included other ways of protecting the environment.

[Maurepas]

It beggars belief that the party accepted the minimum wage increase but not the carbon tax.

Or maybe I shouldn't be surprised given that the former is easier to sell as good for the poor.

I'm not big on the carbon tax personally. They're awful for just about any income bracket in one way or another, and I don't think they're very effective. Tech advancement and investment in it will be the key to fighting climate change, not shifting an undue burden on both the poor who'll need to buy into it, and the rich who'll need to invest in it.

The minimum wage I'm okay with, if not as gung-ho about it. It'll certainly provide some short-term boost for a lot of people, but long term it's just shifting the numbers around for price and labor cost. It isn't actually making that labor more valuable, or stimulating demand for that labor which I think are much bigger factors. But, I'm happy to compromise on it, as like I said, it will bring a short term boost to a lot of people.

[Freefall11111]

It beggars belief that the party accepted the minimum wage increase but not the carbon tax.

Or maybe I shouldn't be surprised given that the former is easier to sell as good for the poor.

Apparently it was by narrow margin, and I can understand them not supporting it, as that is something the party is more divided on. That being said maybe they should have included other ways of protecting the environment.

I don't understand why it's something the party is divided on. A carbon tax would be a fantastic way of both raising revenue that can be reallocated to the people while simultaneously reducing carbon output.

[Corrian]

Ugh, I also have a rather annoying liberal family member that even gets on my nerves because of how they behave.

They're the type to post #NeverHIllary on everything,

And on a MotherJones article that had the description of "Look at all these clowns saying that Clinton and Trump are basically the same.", and he just commented and said "No, she's worse"...

[Freefall11111]

I'm not big on the carbon tax personally. They're awful for just about any income bracket in one way or another, and I don't think they're very effective. Tech advancement and investment in it will be the key to fighting climate change, not shifting an undue burden on both the poor who'll need to buy into it, and the rich who'll need to invest in it.

Why would the poor have the burden of a carbon tax, exactly?

[Neutraligon]

I'm not big on the carbon tax personally. They're awful for just about any income bracket in one way or another, and I don't think they're very effective. Tech advancement and investment in it will be the key to fighting climate change, not shifting an undue burden on both the poor who'll need to buy into it, and the rich who'll need to invest in it.

Why would the poor have the burden of a carbon tax, exactly?

Because businesses will pass that tax onto their customers.

[Freefall11111]

Why would the poor have the burden of a carbon tax, exactly?

Because businesses will pass that tax onto their customers.

Debatable. There's an ongoing debate about whether measures based on annual income are accurate or not. Regardless, a carbon tax can easily be revenue neutral if implemented correctly, negating any potential regressivity while still discouraging carbon production. More info can be found here.

[Maurepas]

I'm not big on the carbon tax personally. They're awful for just about any income bracket in one way or another, and I don't think they're very effective. Tech advancement and investment in it will be the key to fighting climate change, not shifting an undue burden on both the poor who'll need to buy into it, and the rich who'll need to invest in it.

Why would the poor have the burden of a carbon tax, exactly?

Prices going up are going to hurt the poor the worst due to it taking up a larger share of their income. It's actually prettymuch the point of them, since it's supposed to spur moves towards greener alternatives. But without those alternatives actually being better(or in some cases existing), in which case the switch will take place on its own due to it being a better product, you're just going to make the existing products costlier. A family living paycheck to paycheck is going to be paying more for fuel and electricity, and that will hurt them proportionally far more than upper incomes.

[Hallistar]

Sometimes I wonder if Hillary secretly worked a deal with Trump to get him to be the Republican nominee so that he'd lose on purpose. I mean he's the only one out of everyone who ran who has lower ratings than her.

From what I understand about her, being POTUS seems to be more or less her life goal, regardless of what it takes.

I mean, it would be pretty cool being POTUS even though it has to be like the most stressful and hardest to get job out there.

I was a bit of a Bernie fan I'll admit. His policies I'm not too sure about, but he seemed to be at-least the most decent guy out there.

Then again, there's a reason why politicians and CEOs are in the top 10 careers for most sociopaths.

[Freefall11111]

Why would the poor have the burden of a carbon tax, exactly?

Prices going up are going to hurt the poor the worst due to it taking up a larger share of their income. It's actually prettymuch the point of them, since it's supposed to spur moves towards greener alternatives. But without those alternatives actually being better(or in some cases existing), in which case the switch will take place on its own due to it being a better product, you're just going to make the existing products costlier. A family living paycheck to paycheck is going to be paying more for fuel and electricity, and that will hurt them proportionally far more than upper incomes.

See my last post for how a carbon tax can be crafted to negate any regressivity. It's pretty easy.

[Maurepas]

Prices going up are going to hurt the poor the worst due to it taking up a larger share of their income. It's actually prettymuch the point of them, since it's supposed to spur moves towards greener alternatives. But without those alternatives actually being better(or in some cases existing), in which case the switch will take place on its own due to it being a better product, you're just going to make the existing products costlier. A family living paycheck to paycheck is going to be paying more for fuel and electricity, and that will hurt them proportionally far more than upper incomes.

See my last post for how a carbon tax can be crafted to negate any regressivity. It's pretty easy.

I have my doubts these would be effective in our current political climate. I live in a State that promised me it would keep electric costs low in similar regard while it worked on the Coal Lobby's vanity project in Kemper County, my bill has skyrocketed to heights I never thought I'd see in my lifetime because no matter how many subsidies Southern Company receives, it isn't interested in losing any of its profit margins. Maybe if we nationalized the powergrid, but that comes with its own massive negatives(I have no desire to repeat Venezuela's mistakes).

Ultimately I think it's better to keep that off the platform, and instead focused on benefitting companies that are looking to put the fossil fuel industry out of business by out-competing it. We've made a lot of strides in that regard and they're scared. That's why there's been pushback from them against electric cars like with Tesla Motors, and with the solar panel industry like in Georgia and Florida and elsewhere. If I were to adopt a part of the platform in that regard it would be ending their ability to play cronyism to fight off those competitors, and breaking any of the nonsense "Clean Coal" projects the Coal industry is funding.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sometimes I wonder if Hillary secretly worked a deal with Trump to get him to be the Republican nominee so that he'd lose on purpose. I mean he's the only one out of everyone who ran who has lower ratings than her.

From what I understand about her, being POTUS seems to be more or less her life goal, regardless of what it takes.

I mean, it would be pretty cool being POTUS even though it has to be like the most stressful and hardest to get job out there.

I was a bit of a Bernie fan I'll admit. His policies I'm not too sure about, but he seemed to be at-least the most decent guy out there.

Then again, there's a reason why politicians and CEOs are in the top 10 careers for most sociopaths.

The Clinton/Trump thing isn't as far off as it sounds. There's been a story going around for a while (don't know how much their is to it exactly) that Bill (who hobnobbed with Trump in the past) encouraged him to become more involved in politics. Which makes me hate Bill all the more, but to be fair, I doubt he expected the Republicans to be nuts enough to make Trump their nominee. Probably thought he'd just stir shit up and embarrass the Republicans and then go away.

I doubt their was an elaborate plan, because Trump is the very definition of loose canon.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

This is the Laundromat Election. It's about who has the air the most dirty laundry.

[Ashmoria]

it would be bizarre for ANY sanders supporter to end up voting for trump. if they cant stomach Clinton they can vote 3rd party.

I can't imagine ever supporting Trump after supporting Bernie Sanders for so long. You'd have to be completely delusional to not see that his whole "anti-establishment" facade is ridiculous. The man's been a millionaire his entire life, he doesn't have to be bought, he's one of the buyers, and he is no more for the people than Hillary, and worse yet, has the support of many white supremacists and other filth.

I've been an ardent Sanders supporter, and I'd rather vote third party. And nobody better give me that, "If you're not voting against Trump, you're voting for him" nonsense. The only way Clinton will get me to vote for her is out of nervousness over Trump's possible Supreme Court nominees.

and that's a calculation that everyone will have to make.

on both sides really, considering how unpopular trump is all around.

the hard part is finding a 3rd party candidate that you can really support as if she/he were going to be elected.

[Ashmoria]

Has anyone made the argument that Trump is actually doing pretty great and has nothing to worry about? Because now that I'm thinking about it...he only has 1 Million dollars, he is the most unpopular person to ever run for President, Republicans want to challenge his nomination, he has no organization, his staff is basically nothing, and he's embroiled in a fucking fraud lawsuit where he said the judge should recuse himself because his parents are from Mexico...And he's ONLY 5 to 7 points behind in the polls? A deficit that he overcame literally a couple weeks ago, hence the question of this poll...If Donald Trump can be controlled by Manafort in a way that he could be by Lewandoski..we have a problem. If it were Jeb or Little Marco or Lyin Ted...they'd be down double digits, maybe Hillary could cross 60%. But with Trump, it's 47-41 and tied in Ohio and Pennsylvania? Does nobody see the long term problem with this?

that's probably a reflection of how unpopular Clinton is with republicans. they cant imagine voting for her.

it is a big problem for trump to be unable to put out ads right now though. that means he cant answer any of the Clinton/superpac charges except by a lame tweet or 2 about "lyin' Hillary".