America Trump Clinton

[ChurchSoldier]

I find amusing the articles, headlines and social media rants against political candidates. I’ve lived long enough to see a lot of national elections. Each time I think “well, after seeing the damage this candidate has caused, surely the public will wake up.” I guess not yet…

Our presidential candidates aren’t the problem, they are a reflection of the collective voice of the electorate. If you want to see the collective mindset, maturity level, knowledge and understanding of the average American, look at the platform of the major political parties.

In 4 years, the federal government will be bigger, the citizenry will be paying more of their income towards supporting the largess that is the US government, and the rights/power of the individual citizen will be eroded to some degree. Regardless of tax rates, hidden fees and more regulatory costs always eventually get paid by the individual citizen.

Each of the main parties will be spending one billion dollars vying for a job which pays four hundred thousand dollars a year. That’s the equivalent of someone paying a million dollars to secure a job paying forty thousand dollars a year, all paid for by contributors who expect to be paid back by their candidate. I mean the military contractors, government suppliers and financiers, not the American Citizen. Either of the choices who wind up in the Oval Office are there to distribute the money the government takes from its people to give to their supporters, and only tangentially to give enough back to the electorate to keep them quieted.

So, when I hear “he’s a crook, she’s a crook”, I just smile. You’re exactly right, but you probably don’t realize the one they’re taking from is the person reading this sentence right now…

Just wanted to give a bit of a different perspective.

Pax

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Just for a little more perspective. (I have off today and a lot of time to think).

One trillion dollars is 1 with 12 zero’s, divided by 313,000,000 residents equals $3200 per resident.

During the last 8 years, the federal government has borrowed an additional 8 Trillion. If you recall, that’s a Democratic President and Republican Congress. Both parties participated.

That comes out to $25,500 per person. Not an estimate of future obligations, that is actual money already borrowed and spent on your account during the last 8 years.

Add that to the $12,000,000,000,000 that was already there from prior administrations.

So right now, 20 Trillion dollars in total government debt, works out to $64,000 per resident. Not per working person, but resident.

When I look at it, I don’t see how any party can claim to be for the middle class, when they keep taking from the middle class to increase their power now.

Just thought you might want to know.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Just for a little more perspective. (I have off today and a lot of time to think).

One trillion dollars is 1 with 12 zero’s, divided by 313,000,000 residents equals $3200 per resident. Not taxpayer, but resident.

During the last 8 years, the federal government has borrowed an additional 8 Trillion. If you recall, that’s a Democratic President and Republican Congress. Both parties participated.

That comes out to $25,500 per person. Not an estimate of future obligations, that is actual money already borrowed and spent on your account during the last 8 years.

Add that to the $12,000,000,000,000 that was already there from prior administrations.

Remember, this is on top of your payroll, unemployment, social security, health insurance and countless hidden taxes. When I look at it, I don’t see how any party can claim to be for the middle class, when they keep taking from the middle class to give to those who financed their campaign and increase their influence.

Just thought you might want to have something to think about as this election season moves forward.

 

[wllmjoseph]

I find amusing the articles, headlines and social media rants against political candidates. I’ve lived long enough to see a lot of national elections. Each time I think “well, after seeing the damage this candidate has caused, surely the public will wake up.” I guess not yet…

Our presidential candidates aren’t the problem, they are a reflection of the collective voice of the electorate. If you want to see the collective mindset, maturity level, knowledge and understanding of the average American, look at the platform of the major political parties.

In 4 years, the federal government will be bigger, the citizenry will be paying more of their income towards supporting the largess that is the US government, and the rights/power of the individual citizen will be eroded to some degree. Regardless of tax rates, hidden fees and more regulatory costs always eventually get paid by the individual citizen.

Each of the main parties will be spending one billion dollars vying for a job which pays four hundred thousand dollars a year. That’s the equivalent of someone paying a million dollars to secure a job paying forty thousand dollars a year, all paid for by contributors who expect to be paid back by their candidate. I mean the military contractors, government suppliers and financiers, not the American Citizen. Either of the choices who wind up in the Oval Office are there to distribute the money the government takes from its people to give to their supporters, and only tangentially to give enough back to the electorate to keep them quieted.

So, when I hear “he’s a crook, she’s a crook”, I just smile. You’re exactly right, but you probably don’t realize the one they’re taking from is the person reading this sentence right now…

Just wanted to give a bit of a different perspective.

Pax

I am in complete agreement with you. There is definitely at trend in the public’s acceptance for candidates who have been harmful to our country. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have managed to go from on scandal to the next and to survive. In my lifetime I don’t believe that there have been two weaker candidates for President. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are a reflection of the collective voice of the American electorate.

I don’t believe that the two party system is serving our nation well. As you correctly point out in your post both political parties are beholden to special interests. The thing that is so painful to watch is that these special interests within each party is not looking out for what is best for our country but rather how their own interests can be served even if it is to the detriment of our country. Essentially both political parties have become corrupt and the American public would be well served in having additional choices.

 

[hu324b]

Looking from outside the US - we all agree the USA is going to get what they deserve this election. The USA has become the laughing stock of the world with these two candidates - do they go with the bought and paid for candidate and continue or with the Donald.

This has been quite entertaining and I look forward to more craziness in this run for President.

Trump has no filters he can’t be anyone except who he is - what you see is what you get.

Hillary has all the filters in place and she will say what people want to get elected = crooked Hillary - you can never know who she really is.

 

[edwest2]

I find amusing the articles, headlines and social media rants against political candidates. I’ve lived long enough to see a lot of national elections. Each time I think “well, after seeing the damage this candidate has caused, surely the public will wake up.” I guess not yet…

Our presidential candidates aren’t the problem, they are a reflection of the collective voice of the electorate. If you want to see the collective mindset, maturity level, knowledge and understanding of the average American, look at the platform of the major political parties.

In 4 years, the federal government will be bigger, the citizenry will be paying more of their income towards supporting the largess that is the US government, and the rights/power of the individual citizen will be eroded to some degree. Regardless of tax rates, hidden fees and more regulatory costs always eventually get paid by the individual citizen.

Each of the main parties will be spending one billion dollars vying for a job which pays four hundred thousand dollars a year. That’s the equivalent of someone paying a million dollars to secure a job paying forty thousand dollars a year, all paid for by contributors who expect to be paid back by their candidate. I mean the military contractors, government suppliers and financiers, not the American Citizen. Either of the choices who wind up in the Oval Office are there to distribute the money the government takes from its people to give to their supporters, and only tangentially to give enough back to the electorate to keep them quieted.

So, when I hear “he’s a crook, she’s a crook”, I just smile. You’re exactly right, but you probably don’t realize the one they’re taking from is the person reading this sentence right now…

Just wanted to give a bit of a different perspective.

Pax

A wrong viewpoint that is not based on a historical perspective. In a cartoon published decades ago, a man at a bar stool responds to a bartender who tells him all politicians are crooks. The customer calmly replies, “No, they’re not.” This was billed as a way to shock the other guy into disbelief, and get a smile out of the reader.

Fact: There are more lobbyists in Washington now than decades ago.

Fact: A campaign “war chest” consists of money and promises to special interest groups. A few recent events have shown the ability of special interest groups to turn what they would call victories into clear examples of manipulation.

Fact: Morality, as portrayed by the media, and partly based on reality, has gone downhill in the US.

Fact: The media has turned campaigns into mud-slinging events as opposed to presenting the issues calmly and factually. Dirt sells, they’ve decided, facts, not so much.

Fact: As opposed to creating a way to view other people as people, sharp divides have been created over the last 40 years for various reasons. One of which is that social stability is less profitable than social anarchy, and dysfunctionality. And social stability is boring.

In the current campaign, one poster here put it well.

Your choices are:

Evil-evil

and

Clown-evil

Evil is just not acceptable - at all. But in the past few decades when even comic book heroes have decided to do some to a lot of evil, the media is on a one-way trip to a dark place. That’s why I reject most of it. Sure, they can change, but being good most of the time is boring.

Ed

 

[Sjonesd3]

Fact: The media has turned campaigns into mud-slinging events as opposed to presenting the issues calmly and factually. Dirt sells, they’ve decided, facts, not so much.

In the current campaign, one poster here put it well.

Your choices are:

Evil-evil

and

Clown-evil

Evil is just not acceptable - at all. But in the past few decades when even comic book heroes have decided to do some to a lot of evil, the media is on a one-way trip to a dark place. That’s why I reject most of it. Sure, they can change, but being good most of the time is boring.

Ed

I agree with this entire point. You have stuff flying from both sides, and the “commercials” haven’t even started yet. Instead of just saying how the person is unfit, it goes overboard. I’m still researching who I’m going to vote for in regards to 3rd party, because I won’t vote for either of them.
I also agree with a previous poster that said we need more than 2 major options besides the corrupt 2 party system. What about a Labor party, or more press for the Green Party?

 

[Della]

These are our 3rd party choices: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)#Current_U.S._third_parties. At this stage, I have only one candidate I absolutely cannot vote for. As for the other major contender, if I vote, I’m afraid I won’t be happy about it, but that person will get it, for a lack of anyone better, so sad to say. In every other election I could get behind my party’s candidate, if not with enthusiasm, at least feeling that that person would be good for the country. Not so much this election season.

I’ve long been aware that our government is no longer “for the people” but for those with big money who can get promises out of the candidates. I think lobbies, apart from strictly ideological ones, ought to be banned. It’ll never happen, but that’s what I’d like to see.

My only consolation is that at my age I won’t be around to see the ongoing damage our politicians are doing to the country. I fully expect some kind of major rebellion in the next few decades, but again, I won’t be here to see it. I do pity our children and grandchildren, though. They’re going to be in for some pretty rough times. I could be wrong, though. I could be a victim of the dissolving of American values. I’ll know if I’m right or wrong if I’m given a shot to end my existence against my will or if I’m allowed to die when my body is ready to let my soul depart. It may depend on who is elected this year. God help us all, is all I can say.

 

[Padres1969]

Looking from outside the US - we all agree the USA is going to get what they deserve this election. The USA has become the laughing stock of the world with these two candidates - do they go with the bought and paid for candidate and continue or with the Donald.

This has been quite entertaining and I look forward to more craziness in this run for President.

Trump has no filters he can’t be anyone except who he is - what you see is what you get.

Hillary has all the filters in place and she will say what people want to get elected = crooked Hillary - you can never know who she really is.

Believe me, many inside the US are looking at this election the same way. Neither candidate is polling above 50% when talking about support from those who might vote for them. No one likes either of these candidates in the US and many of us are frankly baffled how they were the best either major party could give us. If anything that might be the only good thing to come from this election. More and more I see and talk to people who are considering 3rd party candidates. This might finally be the tipping point to breaking the 2 party stranglehold on US politics. I mean most other western governments feature more than 2 major parties, why not ours too? Coalition breeds compromise and actual political movement on issues rather than the largely partisan deadlock the US has been suffering from for the last couple of decades.

 

[Thorolfr]

More and more I see and talk to people who are considering 3rd party candidates. This might finally be the tipping point to breaking the 2 party stranglehold on US politics. I mean most other western governments feature more than 2 major parties, why not ours too? Coalition breeds compromise and actual political movement on issues rather than the largely partisan deadlock the US has been suffering from for the last couple of decades.

Most countries that have more than 2 major parties have a parliamentary system of government. The nature of our system in the US almost makes multiple major parties impossible. Here’s something that explains why:

An American multi-party system is not emerging and not just due to historical precedent. More important is the electoral dynamic that has created — and will maintain — our two-party system.

America elects its Congressional representatives in 535 separate winner-take-all contests. Even the presidency — because it is decided by the Electoral College, via 50 individual state races — is an amalgamation of separate winner-take-all contests. These elements — separate and winner-take-all — create the incredibly durable two-party system the U.S. has had almost uninterrupted since its founding.

Because these races are local, a party must have enormous breadth and depth of support to have a national impact.

Having just depth or breadth is a ticket to quick oblivion. Even a deep regional party is quickly swallowed up — its issues, and even its elected members, co-opted into one of the two major parties. Even an extensive new national party lacking depth to win local races quickly becomes irrelevant congressionally and consumed by one of the two major parties.

Due to its winner-take-all nature, there are no partial victories — as in parliamentary systems. Its all-or-nothing outcomes mean high return and high risk. To maximize the former and minimize the latter, the optimum is having as few parties as possible encompassing diverging views. The optimum number: Two.

spectator.org/66071_americas-two-party-system-too-ingrained-change/

 

[edwest2]

I don’t understand the whole Eletrical College concept (intentional misspelling). Popular vote only.

Next, a dictatorship of special interests now runs this country, not our elected officials. Those with the money and extremely well thought out plans from the brightest people who either don’t care about right or wrong or just feel that imposing their will is the “right” thing to do is paramount.

By capturing the media to do its bidding, but without revealing too much to the masses, their plans move forward and we simply get by with enough - the dictators being smart enough to know that staying in power means giving the majority of the people some of what they need. And you add a propaganda mechanism to all that.

Ed

 

[wllmjoseph]

These are our 3rd party choices: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)#Current_U.S._third_parties. At this stage, I have only one candidate I absolutely cannot vote for. As for the other major contender, if I vote, I’m afraid I won’t be happy about it, but that person will get it, for a lack of anyone better, so sad to say. In every other election I could get behind my party’s candidate, if not with enthusiasm, at least feeling that that person would be good for the country. Not so much this election season.

I’ve long been aware that our government is no longer “for the people” but for those with big money who can get promises out of the candidates. I think lobbies, apart from strictly ideological ones, ought to be banned. It’ll never happen, but that’s what I’d like to see.

My only consolation is that at my age I won’t be around to see the ongoing damage our politicians are doing to the country. I fully expect some kind of major rebellion in the next few decades, but again, I won’t be here to see it. I do pity our children and grandchildren, though. They’re going to be in for some pretty rough times. I could be wrong, though. I could be a victim of the dissolving of American values. I’ll know if I’m right or wrong if I’m given a shot to end my existence against my will or if I’m allowed to die when my body is ready to let my soul depart. It may depend on who is elected this year. God help us all, is all I can say.

It is not enough to have 3rd party choices. 3rd party choices who do not have a political party will have greater difficulty getting elected. We need to have more that two political parties. The two political parties that we have are lead by their special interests which run counter to what is in the best interest of our country.

I usually vote Republican because I am Pro Life. It has come to a point where we have to acknowledge that our political system is broke. Without competition from other viable political parties the Republicans and Democrats have no incentive to change.

The United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, and Canada have multi party political system. There is a real choice. That is what we need in America otherwise we will continue to be lead by the same two political parties that are more beholden to their special interests as opposed to what is in the best interest of our country.

 

[Della]

It is not enough to have 3rd party choices. 3rd party choices who do not have a political party will have greater difficulty getting elected. We need to have more that two political parties. The two political parties that we have are lead by their special interests which run counter to what is in the best interest of our country.

I usually vote Republican because I am Pro Life. It has come to a point where we have to acknowledge that our political system is broke. Without competition from other viable political parties the Republicans and Democrats have no incentive to change.

The United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, and Canada have multi party political system. There is a real choice. That is what we need in America otherwise we will continue to be lead by the same two political parties that are more beholden to their special interests as opposed to what is in the best interest of our country.

It’s not my post you should reply to, but this one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14103008&postcount=9.

I merely linked to an article that lists the 3rd parties. I didn’t endorse any of them, nor do I agree that having them would help anyone’s ideals come out on top in a national election. Our system simply doesn’t allow for 3rd parties to win.

Indeed, Sanders knew this, which is why he ran as a Democrat. He’s since realigned himself as an Independent. He knew perfectly well he didn’t stand a chance as an IND in a two party system. It’s why Trump won the nomination, as well, because he played within the system. Good, bad, or indifferent, it’s what we have in this country.

 

[Entwhistler]

Looking from outside the US - we all agree the USA is going to get what they deserve this election. The USA has become the laughing stock of the world with these two candidates - do they go with the bought and paid for candidate and continue or with the Donald.

This has been quite entertaining and I look forward to more craziness in this run for President.

Trump has no filters he can’t be anyone except who he is - what you see is what you get.

Hillary has all the filters in place and she will say what people want to get elected = crooked Hillary - you can never know who she really is.

I would be laughing with you if I didn’t live here. I probably won’t be voting for either one of the two major candidates. Yet, I will be smiling grimly if Trump wins. After seeing all of the media outlets bending over backwards to imply that “Trump’s campaign is imploding” or “Trump says stupid comment #1,783”, I will relish the collective despair of the media. They can’t stand him. Not to mention the establishment republicans who say they are not voting for Trump. What happens when the majority of the electorate does? They will feel mighty small which will be good for them. There is more to America than fancy parties, interviews and political power.

 

[edwest2]

Power is everything and they will pay to keep it. The rest is theater with a few “I’ll do this when I’m elected,” followed by “The other party blocked me, so don’t blame me.”

cbsnews.com/news/presidential-price-tag/

Ed

 

[ChurchSoldier]

**Power is everything and they will pay to keep it. The rest is theater with a few “I’ll do this when I’m elected,” followed by “The other party blocked me, so don’t blame me.” **

cbsnews.com/news/presidential-price-tag/

Ed

I think that’s the irony. They tell us what they can to cause us to vote for them, or as is usually the case, to vote “against” the other guy. Then, when they get in, they take our money to pay back their donors and others, using our “credit card”.

Then we’re told how lucky we are to have them since they “fight for us”, which looks a lot to me like taking my money…

Inevitably it is a race to the bottom, which many people feel we have hit, but then a lot of people feel that every election.

In a lot of peoples’ minds, it is time for term limits on all government officials.