US General Election Thread III: Clinton vs. Trump

[Gauthier]

So I was reading through Wikipedia's current events stub when I read that a Filipino lawmaker proposed a bill that would ban Donald Trump from traveling to the Philippines. Why, do you ask, would they want to do that? From the Washington Post:

A lawmaker in the Philippines is calling for Donald Trump to be banned from the country after the U.S. presidential candidate suggested that Philippine immigrants posed a threat to the United States.

"There is no feasible basis or reasonable justification to the wholesale labeling of Filipinos as coming from a 'terrorist state' or that they will be a Trojan horse,” Joey Salceda said in a bill filed in Manila's House of Representatives, according to the Philippine Star.

At a rally in Portland, Maine, on Thursday afternoon, Trump included the Philippines on a list of countries he said had sent immigrants who had plotted to kill Americans, sometimes successfully. "We're letting people come in from terrorist nations that shouldn't be allowed because you can't vet them," he said. "There's no way of vetting them. You have no idea who they are. This could be the great Trojan horse of all time."

In his proposed legislation to ban Trump, Salceda cited a 2001 memorandum issued by the Philippine immigration agency. It says foreign nationals who disrespect the authority of the Philippines can be blacklisted in the interest of public safety.

Salceda, citing data from the U.S. State Department, said that about 4 million people of Philippine descent live in the United States, making them the second-largest Asian American group in the country. The lawmaker, who represents a district in Albay province, said Trump's “remarks have had widespread dissemination, thus aggravating the shame it has already put [on] Filipinos and Filipino Muslims, including Filipino migrants and overseas Filipino workers who this House and our society have recognized as modern heroes of our country.”

Trump, whose provocative views on immigration have upset even members of his own Republican Party, last year proposed a ban on Muslims entering the United States, citing fears of terrorism. That proposal prompted Britain's Parliament to call a debate in January on whether to ban Trump. The debate was noteworthy for its colorful language — one lawmaker called Trump "the orange prince of American self-publicity" — but the move to ban him was unsuccessful. He visited Scotland for the opening of a golf course in June.

Trump has since revised his proposal on a Muslim ban several times. Despite some indications that he was backing down from the controversial proposal, however, he said last month that his position on banning Muslims has "gotten bigger."

Trump does not have major business interests in the Philippines, though he has licensed his name to the Trump Tower Manila, a large residential tower scheduled to open in the Philippine capital this year. In response to his comments in Maine, Philippine Presidential Communications Office Secretary Martin Andanar released a statement saying that Trump had "professed his love for the Philippines" during the launch event for the Trump Tower Manila, calling it a "special place."

According to GMA News, Salceda said the “ugliness of utterances, largely unprompted and undeserved,” by Trump last week stood in contrast to the warm welcome he had received from the Philippines when launching the Trump Tower Manila.

Ironically, the Philippines' recently elected president, Rodrigo Duterte, has been called the "Trump of the East" for his controversial statements about drug dealers and rape. Trump adviser Paul Manafort also worked with Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos in the 1980s.

I guess Trump is really looking to piss off all of America's closest allies.

Also, apparently, Senator Schatz from Hawai'i condemned Trump's comments.

He just wants to open up Trump Towers Moscow and Pyongyang.

[Kelinfort]

So Donald Trump may or may not have early onset dementia, and Hillary Clinton has a handler carrying seizure medication for her and has a tendency to fall. Is... Is Johnson at least healthy?

You fall once and you're unqualified for the presidency, I guess.

[Vassenor]

Ah yes! Let's ban someone for saying he wants to ban someone else. Tit for tat!

Yes, let's let people insult an entire nation with no consequences.

[Gauthier]

So Donald Trump may or may not have early onset dementia, and Hillary Clinton has a handler carrying seizure medication for her and has a tendency to fall. Is... Is Johnson at least healthy?

You fall once and you're unqualified for the presidency, I guess.

So how does that explain Gerald Ford?

[Relentless Oppression]

I am unsure what is wrong with cooperating with the media and the DNC. Please be specific as to what is wrong with that.

Ostensibly news media's primary purpose and obligation is to objectively provide factual information to its consumers irrespective of any particular political actor's interests or preferred narrative. When an outlet simultaneously pretends to be doing this while secretly collaborating with the upper leadership of a particular political party for the sake of crafting a narrative according to the latter's expectations this is wrong because the outlet is lying about its objectivity. There is an undisclosed conflict of interest.

If Fox were open and honest about its status as the media arm of the Republican Party and MSNBC were honest about its status as the media arm of the Democratic Party you'd be right, there would be no issue. But they're not, so there is an issue.

[Shonburg]

So Donald Trump may or may not have early onset dementia, and Hillary Clinton has a handler carrying seizure medication for her and has a tendency to fall. Is... Is Johnson at least healthy?

You fall once and you're unqualified for the presidency, I guess.

If you're going to my president, you better be as graceful and dexterous as a ballerina, dammit!

[Neutraligon]

I am unsure what is wrong with cooperating with the media and the DNC. Please be specific as to what is wrong with that.

Ostensibly news media's primary purpose and obligation is to objectively provide factual information to its consumers irrespective of any particular political actor's interests or preferred narrative. When an outlet simultaneously pretends to be doing this while secretly collaborating with the upper leadership of a particular political party for the sake of crafting a narrative according to the latter's expectations this is wrong because the outlet is lying about its objectivity. There is an undisclosed conflict of interest.

If Fox were open and honest about its status as the media arm of the Republican Party and MSNBC were honest about its status as the media arm of the Democratic Party you'd be right, there would be no issue. But they're not, so there is an issue.

Cooperating with the news media and collaborating with the upper leadership are two different things.

[Saiwania]

I figured you of all people would back Trump. You support right populist movements in Europe that carry the same rhetoric, but not Donald?

No, not if he can't at least debate and explain himself. He is all style over substance when you need both.

[USS Monitor]

That's true too. I wouldn't ditch Johnson if I learned that he was epileptic, so I don't think Clinton supporters would ditch her over something like that either.

Also, the reason it was relevant for McCain was because of the person who would take over should he die. He chose an idiot as a running mate. The same cannot be said for Hillary's running mate. I have absolutely no objection should she die and he take over as president. In fact, considering his resume I honestly felt he was one of the best people Hillary could have gone with as far as taking over the presidency should something happen to her.

Yeah, I don't think people who like Hillary would have a problem with Kaine if it came down to that.

[Narland]

Anyone over 55 is going to start having health issues and peops in their 60s and 70s are probably facing something chronic or life threatening illness, disease, or advanced aging.

Trump, and Clinton both are most likely going to have health problems during either's presidency because of their age. With everyman having the power of big brother in their smart phones when the Prez contenders are in public, it is certain that the rival side will be using any aberration in behaviour to use to call for a determination of incapacity. The left will claim that Trump has advanced dementia and the right will claim that Clinton has a had a stroke, sustained head trauma, and diminished mental capacity, or whatever.

[Eol Sha]

You fall once and you're unqualified for the presidency, I guess.

So how does that explain Gerald Ford?

Well, he wasn't elected (re-elected?) in '76.

[Blakk Metal]

Trump's plan.

[Relentless Oppression]

Cooperating with the news media and collaborating with the upper leadership are two different things.

Are you unaware that Debbie Wasserman Schultz sent furious e-mails indicating she was collaborating with the top brass at MSNBC? That she'd been making phone calls about coverage of Sanders' treatment on MSNBC? That she received cooperation on both counts?

[Lancaster of Wessex]

I'm sure this has been posted already, but this just keeps getting better and better:

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37016680

An open letter signed by 50 Republican national security experts warned that party nominee Donald Trump "would be the most reckless president" in US history.

The group - which includes the former CIA director Michael Hayden - said Mr Trump "lacks the character, values and experience" to be president.

Many of the signatories had declined to sign a similar note in March.

"None of us will vote for Donald Trump," the letter states.

The letter comes after a number of high-profile Republicans have stepped forward to disown Mr Trump.

[Neutraligon]

Cooperating with the news media and collaborating with the upper leadership are two different things.

Are you unaware that Debbie Wasserman Schultz sent furious e-mails indicating she was collaborating with the top brass at MSNBC? That she'd been making phone calls about coverage of Sanders' treatment on MSNBC? That she received cooperation on both counts?

And DBW is not Hillary Clinton.

[Mike the Progressive]

You fall once and you're unqualified for the presidency, I guess.

So how does that explain Gerald Ford?

Just a big old mistake. But Chevy Chase made it funny.

[New Jerzylvania]

You fall once and you're unqualified for the presidency, I guess.

So how does that explain Gerald Ford?

He was never elected Vice President or to the Presidency. His accidency is more accurate. Ford was only ever elected to a congressional seat in Grand Rapids MI. Maybe that explains it.

[The Klishi Islands]

Hey, sorry all. I'm normally on EST, but I'm on vacation in Vienna right now, so I went to bed after posting that. Anyway, replying to the two replies to me I saw:


I'd agree with your first paragraph's assessment.

As for Johnson's "out-there" policies, well, I opposed both of the things you mentioned. But, it seems to me that he understands vaccinations probably should be necessary, and are opposing them on a matter of libertarian principle, which I can at least sympathize with. It's not like he's an anti-vaxxer, he just supports choice. I bet he would support states mandating it, although I'm not sure.

1) Does the child who dies of preventable disease particularly care why? Of course not; and neither do I. Sure, Gov. Johnson's not an anti-vaxxer scam artist, he's just a dogmatist who's willing to let kids die by the thousand in service of his "small government" principles.

I'm not sure that's much better, to be honest - at least the anti-vaxxers honestly believe they're doing a good thing by "exposing" the "truth" about vaccines.

The gold standard return would require an act of Congress, and I'm comfortable that it would never happen.

2) Freedom. Caucus.

He has other crazy policies too, like privatizing Social Security, cutting all spending by 43%, yadda yadda yadda. And yeah, it does bother me. I'm much closer to Clinton than him on most things (My ISideWith results were something like 71% versus 94%). But he's also expressed knowledge that what he wants to get done would have to be negotiated with Congress, dominated by the two parties. So I think his more radical proposals would get shot down in committee, and instead he would pull the taxes and budget discussions towards a more conservative direction.

3) Do you think he'll even try to balance the budget? My experience with balanced-budget fetishists (both in the USA and here in Australia) is that they love themselves some "stimulatory" tax cuts, and any concerns about the deficit come a far distant second.

Incidentally: President Johnson plus a Republican Congress = Social Security privatization.

This is all me being optimistic. My support for Johnson has always been based more on my hatred for the two-party system than anything else; I'm self-justifying a lot up there. To be perfectly honest, I'm not a libertarian at all: I'm a neoliberal who would very much like the two-party system broken.

4) At least you're honest - not just to others, but to yourself. That's important.

I was having trouble phrasing that section. She hasn't been around power all her life, that's true. She's certainly been around power for nearly 40 years, though. And yes, she's been under a closer microscope than most, which is probably where all these "scandals" pop up from. Looking at a list of her past "scandals" from the Atlantic, I'd say most of them are pretty routine stuff. The Clinton Foundation, for example, appears to be a very well-intentioned if somewhat mismanaged (too broad, that is) organization, that takes a bit too much money from authoritarian governments than I'm comfortable with. All the other stuff is run-of-the-mill politician. Benghazi is stupid, and I've been over the emails. That's what I'm referring to with her "shady dealings." It's unfortunately hard for me to shake the notion (having grown up in a Republican household) that there's always something slightly... off about some things she does.

5) I'm going to be brutally honest with you: Have you considered that your discomfort with Clinton may be based at least partly on her gender? Let's face it; she was always absolutely candid about not just being a career woman, but being the kind of career woman who power-dresses and has the attitude to back it up. People raised in a conservative, family-oriented environment often find such an image confronting; it jars their (your) sensibilities about the 'natural' order of affairs.

6) Agreed. The TPP thing does give me pause - it's actually one of the main things keeping me from supporting her outright.

Thought you said you were a neoliberal? The TPP is a neoliberal's wet-dream come true.

Need to rephrase that too. I struggle to articulate what I want in a government. It just seems that the US federal government is so incredibly bureaucratic, with so many redundant agencies and laws and rules, that it is unwieldy and needs reform. Simplification.

7) Interesting - I'll not argue with that desire.

On the tax code, I'd prefer it stripped down to just the brackets. Yeah, sure, I'm fine with more brackets and lifting caps. But I want loopholes/subsidies/tax breaks/nearly all deductions stripped out and the corporate rate lowered to the OECD average. I'd be fine with making up for that falling rate with an increase of marginal rates at the top.

Here's my problem with this idea: Personal income taxes increasingly fail to catch the truly wealthy - whose income mostly comes from franked dividends, and thus are first filtered through the various corporate tax loopholes. And it's a problem that's getting worse, not better - from around 20% of Federal income in 1950, today corporations contribute less than 10% of Federal receipts, leaving the burden to be carried by individual taxpayers. Meanwhile, corporate subsidies (both direct and indirect) continue to grow year, after year, after year.

In short: My problem with cutting corporate tax rates is that the corporate world are essentially free-riders already, or near enough. If I saw a serious reform proposal that cut the rates and paid for itself (preferably also generating extra net revenue, but I'll take what I can get) through cutting the loopholes, I'd support it in a heartbeat. But I haven't seen any serious proposals in that direction.

Some red tape is necessary, of course. But I wasn't talking about things like the ATF. I meant that if multiple departments have programs for, I don't know, helping single mothers, those can be consolidated into one program instead of having different rules and leaders across multiple departments.

9) True. The "whack-a-mole" approach to governmental programs has all too often resulted in severe duplication problems.

I'm not a small government supporter, I'm an efficient government supporter. This could just be me being naive, but I think there are potentially tens of billions wasted every year by inefficiencies.

10) Almost certainly hundreds of billions. But the single biggest (plurality, not majority) offender would have to be the Pentagon...which I also haven't seen any serious proposals to slim down in a sensible fashion.

I hate replying to posts with numbers like this, but it seemed easier for this one. If I had more time, I'd take the time to format it and everything.

1) Well, I agree. I find his position annoying, to say the least. I'm fully in favor of mandatory vaccinations. I'd like a source on that "thousands" number, but I get your general point. I mentioned I've been drifting from Johnson for a while, and that's one of the reasons.

2) The Freedom Caucus is a minority within the House, albeit a loud one, is it not? It's a stupid idea, to be sure, but I'm confident it would not get past both houses.

3) You've never heard of Governor Johnson if you believe he won't try. He advocates for some truly radical (and I acknowledge them as such) across-the-board cuts in order to balance it, but: if you listen to his town hall responses and statements to the media, he knows that his positions are radical, and as such he is willing to compromise and work with both sides to find a solution. He exhibits in his answers a spirit of "bi"partisanship rare in anyone else. That's one of the reasons I like him most.

4) Thanks... I think? I can't tell if you're being condescending or genuine here. Yeah, I'm not a libertarian, but I want a multiparty system, and a moderate libertarian party is awfully close to me. The current LP is not there by any means, of course.

5) I must say that this came as a shock when I read it. I pride myself on my ability to look at every individual as an individual. The "Republican household" I mentioned isn't some conservative bastion or anything; I have two working, relatively socially liberal parents that just place their right-wing economics far higher on the priority list. So to suggest I draw some undercurrent of sexism, some "natural order" from my house is probably false.

I will, however, concede that it could be some sort of unconscious thing. I'd absolutely hate to be judging anyone on some sort of popular stereotype, and I do my best to suppress in me any sort of profiling, whether of race, gender, or whatever. That potential bias could be drawn from the media, from my more conservative father, or from just general social interactions.

However, I really don't think I am particularly biased against women in power. My girlfriend of more than two years is strongly independent and, in fact, is probably the one controlling the relationship more than I am . My mother is also independent, and has been since she began working after college. I admire women like Elizabeth Warren or Loretta Lynch for getting to where they are despite years of sexism, and I can safely say Secretary Clinton falls into that as well. I'm a full-throated advocate for women in the military and in the draft (which I'd prefer to abolish). To top it off, I have a fairly basic and negative reaction to anything I perceive as unfair on any silly basis, including sex, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, whatever.

To illustrate this last point, the "negative reaction," I've included a passage I wrote in a letter to my school's administration in a spoiler below.

Context: I'm a member of the Honor Council at my school, which is basically a jury for "honor violations" like plagiarism. Three students per grade (10/11/12 grade). This past year, three new students were elected for the rising sophomore class, all of them male. The admins at my school declared a fourth member for the Council, a girl, which upset the balance of equal representation of the grades, on the basis of unequal representation of the sexes (in essence, the rising sophomores would now have four members of the Council, a girl and three boys, instead of three boys, while every other grade on the Council would have three members, which happened to also be unbalanced in favor of boys):

On a related note, the move has been justified to me on the basis of gender equality on the Council; in essence, it is an affirmative-action program. Now, I have absolutely no problem with a gender-balanced Council; diversity of opinion is always a good thing. However, the three freshmen boys were elected by their class in a democratic vote. To upend the results on the basis of gender is strange, as unfortunate as it is that we have a male-dominated Council. In addition, how far does this affirmative action go? We only have one minority member on the Council, [redacted for privacy]. We have no African-American or Hispanic representation; shall we begin filling future seats on that basis?

I do not believe there is any systemic sexism (or individual racism, for that matter) on the part of the freshmen or the student body in general, so I see no need for affirmative action. I firmly reject the idea that men and women rule and act differently on the Council: to assume I am more “hawkish” because I am male or that a woman would be more “dovish” for no other reason than that she is female is simply false (as is, of course, the reverse). Individuals are different, and that is where the most important point lies. The freshmen elected three individuals to the Honor Council to represent them. Whether they are male or female has no bearing on their judgement, their trustworthiness, or their honor.

I later retracted my letter after a meeting with the administration, when an extremely important point I hadn't considered was pointed out: no girl wants to be tried in front of a "jury" composed (nearly) entirely of boys (among several other points). Regardless, I think it makes my point regarding my views on sex quite clear: I have absolutely no problem with women in power, so long as they are there on the same standards as men. I really don't believe I'm a sexist. But thank you for bringing it to my attention.

6) I mean that her stated opposition to the TPP gives me pause. I'd rather her be in favor of it, as she was as Secretary of State. And I acknowledge that the agreement isn't perfect, but I am in favor of it nonetheless.

7) Joy. A break

8. Did I ever voice opposition to cutting away those dastardly subsidies and loopholes? I want the rates cut to the OECD average to make the US business environment more attractive, but I also want the entire tax code - be it personal, corporate, whatever - to be cut down to the bare bones of revenue-raising rates. I despise corporate welfare because it causes unnecessary, damaging, and ultimately negative distortions in the market (as opposed to a positive market distortion I'm in favor of, like prescription drug price controls).

Of course, Johnson wants to implement a consumption tax, which is painfully stupid in my eyes. It's by far my biggest problem with him.

9) I've never heard of it called "whack-a-mole" before, but I rather like it. Is that a common term for it? I may steal it.

10) Actually, I've heard of the Pentagon proposing closing domestic bases to save money before. It never gets through Congress, though, because "that base is in muh district!"

[Mike the Progressive]

Trump's plan.

Um what?

[New Jerzylvania]

I'm sure this has been posted already, but this just keeps getting better and better:

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37016680

An open letter signed by 50 Republican national security experts warned that party nominee Donald Trump "would be the most reckless president" in US history.

The group - which includes the former CIA director Michael Hayden - said Mr Trump "lacks the character, values and experience" to be president.

Many of the signatories had declined to sign a similar note in March.

"None of us will vote for Donald Trump," the letter states.

The letter comes after a number of high-profile Republicans have stepped forward to disown Mr Trump.

That's from the choir. Trump is a dead duck on National Security issues.

[Relentless Oppression]

And DBW is not Hillary Clinton.

So?

I am unsure what is wrong with cooperating with the media and the DNC. Please be specific as to what is wrong with that.

[Blakk Metal]

Trump's plan.

Um what?

Get it, because Trump is shooting himself in the foot?

[Mike the Progressive]

Um what?

Get it, because Trump is shooting himself in the foot?

>.>

<.<

ok...

[Neutraligon]

I'm sure this has been posted already, but this just keeps getting better and better:

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37016680

That's from the choir. Trump is a dead duck on National Security issues.

Which brings up an interesting question, if he does go to the debates what is he going to do in the debate about National Security or the debate about foreign relations?

[Shonburg]

You fall once and you're unqualified for the presidency, I guess.

So how does that explain Gerald Ford?

A glitch in the matrix.