US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2618

On December 08 2015 00:42 ElMeanYo wrote:


By that logic... Trump is much richer than Hillary...

On December 08 2015 00:55 KwarK wrote:

Ah, you appear to have misunderstood his point. He meant the things that you can buy with money. Hillary has a shitton of money that she is going to spend. Unless you believe Trump is going to spend down his entire net worth on ads explaining how great he is the net worth isn't really important. Hillary gets to spend other peoples' money, Trump doesn't. Simply having money doesn't actually get you the things, money has to be exchanged for goods and services.

On December 08 2015 00:57 ElMeanYo wrote:


He can way outspend Hillary if he is willing to use his own money. I suppose it depends on whether he really wants the Presidency or whether he is just trolling everyone (sometimes it seems like the latter).

I'd be willing to bed he could spend a few billion on this election to win and more than make that back with fame and power that comes from being president.

On December 08 2015 00:28 Kickstart wrote:
Bernie's record is quite good. His biggest problem will be selling himself so that people know who he is and his history and record. That could be a better problem to have than the one Trump has, which is that large swaths of the population will never vote for him at all because of the things he has already done and said.

EDIT:
Just want to point out that the Rs are really doing themselves in with their insistence on pandering to the most extreme segments of the base. If you look at the views of populations across america there are many segments that are traditionally very conservative, on both social and monetary issues. If they stuck to such issues and left out the ~25% of their party that are rather extreme, they would do quite well.

The way I always describe it is that too often I see some conservatives be completely wrong on what I would describe as 'easy' issues (mostly referring to social issues), and my line of thought is that if they can be so wrong about issues that are relatively simple, I don't trust them with actual difficult issues like foreign policy.

Even as they bash Big Oil and push for a strong global climate deal in Paris, Democrats are strongly considering joining forces with congressional Republicans to give the petroleum industry the biggest item on its wish list: an end to the U.S. oil exports ban that has been in effect since the era of disco and bell-bottoms.

The four-decade-old ban has become a crucial bargaining chip during budget talks ahead of a Friday deadline to avoid a government shutdown. Whether the two sides can reach a deal — Democrats are asking for a host of tax credits, including for clean energy, that Republicans have long railed against — is an open question as the negotiations enter the home stretch this week.

What is clear is the talks have scrambled Washington’s energy politics, putting Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at odds with the Koch brothers and pitting environmentalists against their Democratic allies.

An end to the ban is "obviously being pushed very hard by McConnell," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a member of her party's leadership. "And there are a couple in our caucus that agree, but the price is very high.”

The topsy-turvy politics of oil exports got that way thanks to a seismic upheaval in energy markets that began soon after Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski went out on a limb in January 2014 as the first congressional Republican to call for an end to federal restrictions on overseas sales of U.S. crude. Most Republicans — shrugging off their usual free-market philosophy — were reluctant to take up any changes to an oil trade policy that might bring voter backlash if it caused gas prices to spike.

But oil prices have plunged from $100 a barrel then to around $40 now, and last week an otherwise strong jobs report showed U.S. drillers in a tailspin. That picture has left some Democrats more open to an exports deal that once seemed unthinkable.

At the moment, though, Democrats’ asking price for lifting the export ban looks higher than the GOP wants to pay. For starters: extending renewable energy benefits, more conservation funding, and a bigger child care tax credit. And that alone won't be enough, a Democratic leadership aide said Friday.

On December 08 2015 01:11 ElMeanYo wrote:
I think you guys are underestimating how much Trump could round up if he got into a competitive race and wanted to out-spend his opponent. I'm not even talking about his own assets. For all his craziness he's a pretty shrewd businessman.

On December 08 2015 01:24 farvacola wrote:

you're drinking too much primary kool-aid, dawg. The past two election cycles (hell, US presidential election cycles generally) have taught us that, crazy race to the ideological bottom notwithstanding, the general election plays out entirely differently than the primary. So yeah, claims of "political genius" are gonna have to wait until, at the very least, Trump gets the Republican nomination.

On December 08 2015 01:28 Plansix wrote:
Trump needs to win over women, blacks and Hispanics to take the Whitehouse. His polling is terrible in those groups. And Sanders is talking about taxing and reforming the banks and other large businesses, who are not well loved in the US in any way. People hate Wall Street almost as much as they hate Congress.

On December 08 2015 01:33 Mohdoo wrote:


I think Sanders' fight against Clinton is a perfect example of how things would go in a general. She's about as wall st as it gets and Sanders still can't even win a primary. Reddit loves to celebrate Sanders' rise, but he is stagnating double digits behind her. She isn't attacking Sanders and she isn't even really fighting wall st at all. She's as establishment as it gets and Sanders still can't even touch her on a national scale. I think your trust in the strength of good ideas is misguided. Proper, well reasoned ideas do not win elections on their own.

On December 08 2015 01:27 Mohdoo wrote:


I don't support him and I would never vote for him, but there is a reason he was laughed off as a joke for a long time. He's doing the impossible and I think people hate him too much to give him proper credit. My point is that I think Trump can manage to race to the ideological bottom and then turn around and sprint for the center as soon as a general election started. Or he could at least do so 100x better than Sanders. If Trump somehow snatches the nomination from Rubio, we better hope Clinton continues her dominance.