GOP Primary Megathread III: Third Time's A Charm

[Novus America]

Well I would say below average is bad. I said he was not James Buchanan bad of course. There are levels of bad, but that is mostly semantics. But Ark implied Carter was good, and on level with Teddy and Ike. Which is not the case.

But Trump does not mean well. Trump is purely self serving. Or he means well to himself and no body else. Yes Hitler meant well in a way, he had principles. Totally fucked up ones, but he had them. He believed in making what he saw as a better world. Again a totally fucked up vision, but he had one.

Trump has no principles, not morals, no vision. Nothing but his ego.

He's what he is... A narcissistic borderline sociopath, as evidenced by his various attention getting devices, the xenophobia coupled with his minimal conscience, IMHO.

Oh I agree with you 100%. I am obviously no Trump fan.

[New Jerzylvania]

He's what he is... A narcissistic borderline sociopath, as evidenced by his various attention getting devices, the xenophobia coupled with his minimal conscience, IMHO.

Oh I agree with you 100%. I am obviously no Trump fan.

I know. You got that part figured out a while ago. Granted, you're much better in deducing that than all these Donny Trump fanboys roaming around this board.

[Arkinesia]

Yes because eliminating millions of industrial jobs

[citation needed]

[Novus America]

Yes because eliminating millions of industrial jobs

[citation needed]

Very well.
http://www.epi.org/publication/manufact ... e-culprit/

[MERIZoC]

Why not piss off and let people do what they want instead of needlessly restricting them cause it makes you uncomfortable?

Mostly because people would die. It's the same reason we have TSA and Border Control. Not only is it a deterrent, but it just keeps folks safe, which is what we need in this mess of a world! It always has the potential of being a security threat, and could result in the death of quite a few people. Why take the risk for something as stupid as that?

There's no more demonstrable risk than for any other athlete.

[Timsvill]

I'm voting for a third party this election. I'm not voting for our parties nomination and nor I'm voting for the democrats nomination

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm voting for a third party this election. I'm not voting for our parties nomination and nor I'm voting for the democrats nomination

The Libertarians grow stronger each day

[MERIZoC]

I'm voting for a third party this election. I'm not voting for our parties nomination and nor I'm voting for the democrats nomination

The Libertarians grow stronger each day

Smarter on the other hand...

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Libertarians grow stronger each day

Smarter on the other hand...

It could be worse, we could be the Greens.

[MERIZoC]

Smarter on the other hand...

It could be worse, we could be the Greens.

The greens at the very least don't have an economic policy dictated by someone resembling a 14 year old who just read Atlas Shrugged.

[Arkinesia]

[citation needed]

Very well.
http://www.epi.org/publication/manufact ... e-culprit/

This does little to implicate government policy in the loss of manufacturing jobs. If anything, it implicates American prosperity, because it's simply too expensive to produce lower-tier manufactured goods in this country and sell them from this country.

[Novus America]

Very well.
http://www.epi.org/publication/manufact ... e-culprit/

This does little to implicate government policy in the loss of manufacturing jobs. If anything, it implicates American prosperity, because it's simply too expensive to produce lower-tier manufactured goods in this country and sell them from this country.

Tell me how stagnate wages is prosperity.

Way to move those goal posts. And it does directly implicate the government. But if you want more...
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... great-idea
http://m.industryweek.com/workforce/why ... -countries

See the real world is more complicated than Econ 101.
Free trade is like fairy dust. It exists in thoery, not in practice. Like the informed market and rational consumer.

We do not and cannot work within a perfectly free market. Competive advantage is not something inanate. It is something determined by government policy. We can and should increase our competive advantage.

Are you really arguing our trade policy is perfect? Our ecnomy perfect? That there is no room for improvement.

We also have a trade deficit in height tier goods. Again your theoretical model has not played out perfectly in real life. At all.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm voting for a third party this election. I'm not voting for our parties nomination and nor I'm voting for the democrats nomination

The Libertarians grow stronger each day

Indeed, they peaked at about 1% in the early 80's before dropping back to 0... and now they've rocketed back to 1%.

[Grave_n_idle]

Bill Clinton was the best President of the 20th-21st century.

How? He did not cause the fall of the Soviet Union or the Internet boom. And the 2000s showed just how superficial, empty and unsustainable the 90s were. Plus Clinton's aggressive support of destroying our factories.

The 2000's show how superficial bubble economies are, not the 90s. The bubble that burst in the 00's had been building at least since the 70s'.

But 'not causing the fall of the Soviet Union' isn't a reasonable metric by which to measure Presidents. The fall of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with American Presidents.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Libertarians grow stronger each day

Indeed, they peaked at about 1% in the early 80's before dropping back to 0... and now they've rocketed back to 1%.

Upwards of 10% according to recent polls, such is the glory of both parties nominating pretty much the worst choices possible.

[Grave_n_idle]

Indeed, they peaked at about 1% in the early 80's before dropping back to 0... and now they've rocketed back to 1%.

Upwards of 10% according to recent polls, such is the glory of both parties nominating pretty much the worst choices possible.

If you're talking about one election result, or if you're talking about obscure polls, you can come up with almost any number you want.

I'm talking about general election voting, which is the most accurate marker - where the Libertarian party has veered wildly from 0% to 1% over the last 40 years.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Upwards of 10% according to recent polls, such is the glory of both parties nominating pretty much the worst choices possible.

If you're talking about one election result, or if you're talking about obscure polls, you can come up with almost any number you want.

I'm talking about general election voting, which is the most accurate marker - where the Libertarian party has veered wildly from 0% to 1% over the last 40 years.

And we stand to easily break upwards of 5% this year based on everything we've seen thus far, we'll just have to wait and see.

[Novus America]

How? He did not cause the fall of the Soviet Union or the Internet boom. And the 2000s showed just how superficial, empty and unsustainable the 90s were. Plus Clinton's aggressive support of destroying our factories.

The 2000's show how superficial bubble economies are, not the 90s. The bubble that burst in the 00's had been building at least since the 70s'.

But 'not causing the fall of the Soviet Union' isn't a reasonable metric by which to measure Presidents. The fall of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with American Presidents.

You missed the point. I merely pointed out Clinton was lucky. I was not blaming him or crediting him for the fall.

[Grave_n_idle]

The 2000's show how superficial bubble economies are, not the 90s. The bubble that burst in the 00's had been building at least since the 70s'.

But 'not causing the fall of the Soviet Union' isn't a reasonable metric by which to measure Presidents. The fall of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with American Presidents.

You missed the point. I merely pointed out Clinton was lucky. I was not blaming him or crediting him for the fall.

I think maybe you missed the point. Someone can believe Clinton was the best President without him necessarily having caused the fall of the Soviet Union or being personally responsible for a bubble economy. Those are red herrings, at best, to be honest.

[Novus America]

You missed the point. I merely pointed out Clinton was lucky. I was not blaming him or crediting him for the fall.

I think maybe you missed the point. Someone can believe Clinton was the best President without him necessarily having caused the fall of the Soviet Union or being personally responsible for a bubble economy. Those are red herrings, at best, to be honest.

Not really. He got lucky. Presidents are often victims of circumstance. Point is the Bill Clinton did not cause the things about the 90s considered good. An had he been elected in 2000 he would be regarded very differently.

[Grave_n_idle]

I think maybe you missed the point. Someone can believe Clinton was the best President without him necessarily having caused the fall of the Soviet Union or being personally responsible for a bubble economy. Those are red herrings, at best, to be honest.

Not really. He got lucky. Presidents are often victims of circumstance. Point is the Bill Clinton did not cause the things about the 90s considered good. An had he been elected in 2000 he would be regarded very differently.

Speculation isn't really helpful, is it? I mean - in the wake of 9/11, what would Clinton have done?

I suppose it depends what you think of as his successes. CHIP was a success. The longest peacetime period of economic expansion is considered good, although it obviously can't all be credited to him... or considered without also considering the bubble market. NAFTA could be considered good.

[Novus America]

Not really. He got lucky. Presidents are often victims of circumstance. Point is the Bill Clinton did not cause the things about the 90s considered good. An had he been elected in 2000 he would be regarded very differently.

Speculation isn't really helpful, is it? I mean - in the wake of 9/11, what would Clinton have done?

I suppose it depends what you think of as his successes. CHIP was a success. The longest peacetime period of economic expansion is considered good, although it obviously can't all be credited to him... or considered without also considering the bubble market. NAFTA could be considered good.

I never said he was all bad. Just that he was not great either.

[Grave_n_idle]

Speculation isn't really helpful, is it? I mean - in the wake of 9/11, what would Clinton have done?

I suppose it depends what you think of as his successes. CHIP was a success. The longest peacetime period of economic expansion is considered good, although it obviously can't all be credited to him... or considered without also considering the bubble market. NAFTA could be considered good.

I never said he was all bad. Just that he was not great either.

I didn't say you said he was bad.

Someone else suggest ed they thought he was good. Your response was that he hadn't done two apparently arbitrary things, as though that were an argument against.

Personally, I probably wouldn't say he was best... but that would be based on real metrics, not arbitrary and irrelevant ones.

He was far from worst, though. Which is why he was such a nightmare for the GOP.

[Northern Davincia]

Not really. He got lucky. Presidents are often victims of circumstance. Point is the Bill Clinton did not cause the things about the 90s considered good. An had he been elected in 2000 he would be regarded very differently.

Speculation isn't really helpful, is it? I mean - in the wake of 9/11, what would Clinton have done?

I suppose it depends what you think of as his successes. CHIP was a success. The longest peacetime period of economic expansion is considered good, although it obviously can't all be credited to him... or considered without also considering the bubble market. NAFTA could be considered good.

NAFTA should be thrown into the nearest fireplace without remorse.

[Geilinor]

Speculation isn't really helpful, is it? I mean - in the wake of 9/11, what would Clinton have done?

I suppose it depends what you think of as his successes. CHIP was a success. The longest peacetime period of economic expansion is considered good, although it obviously can't all be credited to him... or considered without also considering the bubble market. NAFTA could be considered good.

NAFTA should be thrown into the nearest fireplace without remorse.

Why? It had little to no effect on jobs and helped grow the economy.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/naftas-impact-on-employment/
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/

If NAFTA had not been signed, Guillen adds, “the jobs would probably have gone to China or somewhere else; most jobs have relocated to China.