We should've picked Hillary, but Trump is the best

Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month ago to Philosophy
120 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

A title inspired by the NYT to get attention. Just looking for a conclusive survey in this well-informed forum.

1. Who was the best candidate we could have actually gotten elected in 2016 (easter bunny is out) to optimize general freedom

2.Who was the the best presidential candidate in 2016 we could've gotten elected from an Objectivist perspective.

3. What else could (should) we be doing that would practically improve our freedom in our lifetimes?

Just preparing for the next election and getting the best input.

"Yes, but..." is a waste of everyone's time.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 10
    Posted by  $  exceller 1 month ago
    Not sure were you are going with these questions.

    We all know that there was only one choice from a sane point of view and that was Trump.

    Nobody would have been able to deal with the disastrous changes Obama loaded on the country.

    Moore said that Trump was a street fighter and at this point in history that is the only qualification that fits the need of the country.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 month ago
      Agree totally. Trump is intellectually compromised and inconsistent (repeal but replace obamacare with some other stupid government program), but the fact the left HATES him so much is encouraging in that he is opposing them and they know it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month ago
        You and I argued about Trump, and you were right. A learning exercise for me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 month ago
          But trump is intellectually inconsistent !! The tariff thing with China will keep him from winning in 2020
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  1 month ago
            Maybe. I am thinking the tariff thing is really damaging China, with whom, we are at war...We just don't know it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 month ago
              I think Trump was using the tariffs to get the chinese to be more reasonable on trade. I think HE thought they woul buckle under rather quickly, he would look good, and there would be no harm to our economy.

              BUT, the chinese didnt buckle and in my view they wont, One Belt, One Road and China 2025 are way more important to them than anything else.

              What Trump should have done in my view is to come out in the beginning NOT with tariffs, but with Patriotic slant on trade. Given China isnt fair with us, why should we trade with them at all. I notice that he has "ordered" companies here to find alternate supply chains (this came out today 8/23). I think he should have done this right off instead of the tariffs, particularly in view of the reaction of the chinese to our tariffs.

              f he drops the tariffs now and just sticks to "dont trade with china until they treat us better", I think people will get behind him. I certainly will.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 1 month ago
    From the wording of the questions("we could have actually gotten elected in 2016"), it appears you are rejecting all other candidates but Trump and Hitlery.
    Given that restriction, I vote "anyone but Hitlery."
    Without that restriction I'd still have voted for neither of them as I did in 2016.
    I will not decide on my 2020 vote until election day, but it won't be for the Dem candidate.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 month ago
      ALL of the democratic candidates are TERRIBLE.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by tdechaine 1 month ago
        No, all are not; and Rep.s had better recognize that.
        If a moderate candidate gains momentum, Trump could easily lose. Consider Tim Ryan.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 month ago
          I dont see why a reasonable pereson wouldl be a democrat in the frist place, particularly in this very leftist environment. If Trump loses in 2020 to any of the democrats, it will be a terrible loss for the country and a big win for the socialist collectivists. The first think any one of the democrats would go is reverse any of Trump's executive orders, and if they have a supermajority in the senate and a majority in the house, they will open the borders, do medicaid for everyone, raise taxes a lot, and many more collectivist things.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -3
            Posted by tdechaine 1 month ago
            Trump is a danger in his own right; the choice is not good. His brand of conservatism is not healthy; e.g. trade war, irrational immigration policies, dangerous dealings with foreign powers, etc.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 4 weeks, 1 day ago
              His immigration policy is not irrational. We should pick potential immigrants who ADD to our country

              Tariffs are bad and useless and stupid. They will make him lose in 2020

              Foreign policy is good. Other countries should respect us
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                I agree, the proposed changes to immigration do pick immigrants who add to the country ... if the con-gress will get out of the way and let it become law.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 4 weeks ago
                  My view towards immigration is essentially similar to my view towards a stranger knocking at my front door wishing to live in my house with me. The stranger needs to convince me he/she will add to my life before I will agree to it
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  Snezzy 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                    I agreed to a couple of those, "Got evicted, no place to stay, will help you on the farm."

                    No help, barfed on the carpet when drunk, ruined one good riding horse in just five minutes. So happy to see her go.

                    We have given thousands in charity to supposed friends. A few could actually do good work, but always needed more and more help themselves. Some stole from us. One of them murdered one of our horses in revenge for our failure to support her totally.

                    We completely support Trump on immigration and trade. Trump knows Sun Tzu, so what you see now may be different from what he is doing.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  4 weeks, 1 day ago
                Well, that is a decent argument. Looks like a cat's got someone's tongue.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                  I think that Trump's tariff policy will be his undoing by his own hand. He needs to just say china had its chance to reform their trade policies, but they refuse. Now its just a matter of slowing and eventually stopping purchases from china as a matter of principle. USA did ok without chinese stuff in the past, and can do ok without china in the future. Better that than help china's totalitarian government ( shown by their treatment of Hong Kong) get stronger and stronger and feed their expansionist dreams
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 weeks ago
                    Trump is using tariffs to have a lever against the Chinese protectionism and tariffs. If you don't have something to threaten them with, then you are left with "pretty please" as a negotiating tool.

                    The political problem is that it hurts the businesses that trade with China and they are complaining. The business that might be created if China doesn't use trade barriers to block U.S. goods do not exist yet, so they have no lobby.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Lucky 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                      .. using tariffs. ..If you don't have something to threaten them with, then you are left with "pretty please" as a negotiating tool.

                      Free trade, no tariffs, may be the only Objectivist policy by which government does not instruct people or companies what to do with their property. This is on top of the economic benefits for both nations where one does and the other does not have tariffs.
                      So that negotiating tool is of no benefit, your stance is that other nations can have or can not have tariffs, you do not.

                      I am open to counter arguments for the case of small nations/economies.

                      Responding to a point you made 4h earlier- how to respond to a central authoritarian government- they sell products to you but will not buy your products, instead they buy your office blocks, factories, mines and ports. I remain unconvinced that this is bad.
                      (Again small economies has special conditions, Singapore, Luxembourg etc manage ok with relatively free trade, SriLanka not so well)

                      Is Trump wrong here? Maybe it is a case of- this will hurt me but less than it will hurt you. Trump may be thinking ahead more than I am, but, I reckon, more tariffs are better for political posturing than economic benefit.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  3 weeks, 5 days ago
                        Playing a fair game with a street fighter (China and the rest of the world) will get you killed.

                        If a country (e.g. China) wipes out a manufacturing capability in the US by investing (money and people), they can raise prices and keep the capability from coming back privately, indefinitely. No company can take on the Chinese government.

                        The scale and timeframe of this totalitarian war on the US can not be won on free trade alone. Not at least until we are all China, and they allow competition under and within their totalitarian regime, not without.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  blarman 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                        "Free trade, no tariffs, may be the only Objectivist policy"

                        But that entirely depends on both of the party nations being in favor of free trade, does it not? And that makes ALL the difference in this particular dispute. China isn't a free trade nation. They don't respect property rights, they manipulate their currency, they threaten the stability of the western Pacific, and prosecute those who advocate for free speech (see the recent Hong Kong protests).

                        It's nice to talk about ideals, but one has to recognize that when one of the nations in a trade policy isn't following even the basics, it isn't even on the table to talk about ideals.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Lucky 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                          There are benefits from free trade even if only one side does it.
                          If the other side does it, then deciding to limit trade yourself is punishing yourself for image. If they bring in tariffs it does not benefit their economy, it can benefit a few of their influential monopolists who get their government to protect them.
                          I agree with the criticisms of China. Tariffs will not change any of that.
                          Even complete trade embargoes do not work (see Iran, N.Korea). Only projection of force works, for that, do not weaken your economy for ineffective ideology.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  blarman 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                            "There are benefits from free trade even if only one side does it."

                            Short term benefits with grave long-term costs. Who does the current trade imbalance help when that trade imbalance is being used by Chinese corporations and individuals to buy up real American assets in real estate and stock? Who benefits when American companies invest millions and even billions of dollars in new technologies only to have them pirated by the Chinese and their technologies sold out from under them?

                            "Even complete trade embargoes do not work"

                            Whether it is Cuba, Iran, North Korea, or Russia, trade embargoes have been incredibly effective at "encouraging" policy change. If you think they've been ineffective, I'd ask you to cite some evidence.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by Lucky 3 weeks, 5 days ago
                              I'd be interested to see evidence that tariffs 'work'.
                              Anyway, not supporting my case but interesting-
                              quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/08/a...
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  blarman 3 weeks, 5 days ago
                                All trade policies are enacted with specific goals in mind. If they accomplish those goals, they "work." Trump's goal with the trade tariffs on China is to lessen the trade imbalance and encourage China to play fairly and respect property rights. And with that goal in mind, they have worked. The Chinese government has been far more willing to condemn open IP theft (though they still have a long way to go). And the trade imbalance in dollar value has dropped. Not sure how else you want to measure "success."

                                Full trade embargoes have been highly effective on Iran, Cuba, and North Korea. They were even effective on Russia right after the Crimean invasion in severely hampering the Russian economy. Until the EU backed out. I'd strongly suggest that before criticizing the policy, you look into what the policy is and what the goal of the policy is.

                                I think you'll find that economic trade policies are one of the most effective tools available in diplomacy - if we choose to use them and use them consistently. Areas where they tend to be less effective are when the policy enforcement waxes and wanes depending on the current political climate. For example, we've had a trade embargo on North Korea going back decades. Bill Clinton undermined it by sending millions of tons of grain to North Korea for humanitarian aid. All that allowed North Korea to do was to keep making weapons instead of feeding their (literally) starving people. That policy was reversed under GW Bush and we saw a much more conciliatory North Korea. Then under Obama, we got a much more aggressive North Korea because of Obama's failure on the general foreign policy front. When Trump tightened things back up (and send nice little pictures of Kim standing next to a missile platform), Kim's rhetoric immediately nose-dived.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by Lucky 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                                  All trade policies are enacted with specific goals in mind.
                                  Agreed, the goals are political, not economic. Events in both politics and economics are generally ambiguous so whatever happens, success is claimed.

                                  N.Korea has the bomb, Iran is working on it. Whatever was used in tariffs and embargoes did not work. The economy of Iran is in bad shape, the leaders accept that as the price for the bomb - as for N.Korea where starvation is ok as long as the weapons are produced.

                                  Kim's rhetoric immediately nose-dived
                                  Yes. But he still has the bomb, aggressive military maneuvers and weapons tests appear undiminished.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • blarman replied 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                    • Posted by term2 4 weeks ago
                      Consider that maybe the relatively minuscule tariffs trump placed on Chinese goods were really an initial invitation to the Chinese to engage in fair trade. But as they resisted, I think trump doesn’t want to deal with them. He is now encouraging people in the USA to use their ultimate power and just stop buying goods made in China. He can’t do that by executive order, but he can use the bully pulpit to convince us that we are shooting out selves in the foot by enriching China through trade with them. I am thinking at this point trump doesn’t want a deal- he wants trade to slow down drastically. He is even saying “they want a deal, but I am not ready “

                      Smart USA companies will get the message rearrange their supply chains asap. I think tariffs will ratchet up to 100% soon
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 weeks ago
                        Trump knows that it will hurt us for trade with China to be reduced. It will crush them. I think he has the upper hand and knows it.

                        I think that in the end Trump wants more trade but he's right, the U.S. simply gives in to keep things placid.

                        I used to accept Milton Friedman's approach that if China, or any other nation, subsidized their producers they were essentially subsidizing American consumers.

                        However, with Trump's emphasis I've been rethinking this and realize that if the manufacturing job goes to China, the fact that they subsidize the goods may not make up for the lower salary of the displaced worker. It only works for us if people can find work with similar compensation. And they can't
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by term2 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                          First of all, China already relies a lot less on making stuff fir export, so I am not so convinced the current tariffs will do much. Remember equivalent prices for us mfg are 300% of Chinese prices. If Americans, for patriotic reasons, willingly cut 50% of their purchases from China, that might crush them. Once we start down that path, there is no return for China and they realize that.

                          Given china’s expansionist,warlike, and anti human rights positions, do we really want to trade with them at all? Would it make sense to trade with hitler while he was building death camps?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  3 weeks, 6 days ago
                            Not trading with them at all could put us into the position Russia was during the Cold War. I don’t disagree with the idea, but it seems to drastic a change from where we are. I could see Europe start to switch horses. We need them to tow part of the line. But they are cockroaches.

                            They may not need to trade with the US to survive, but they do to grow. Our experiment there was a massive failure. We funded our enemy to become economically and soon militarily significant. So stupid.

                            I still say there is nothing more ironic than a “Proud Union” bumper sticker in a Walmart parking lot.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by term2 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                              WE cant just turn off the taps immediately. Even for our small company, it will take a year to find alternate sources of supply, or perhaps revert to make our products in the USA at dramatically higher prices (or maybe go out of business). The inflation that Obama and others have caused was masked by the lower prices from china and the stockpiling of US$ that China held onto. Now the chickens will come home to roost. If we cant find alternate supplies at reasonable prices, look out for massive inflation here in the usa
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month ago
      I did make that distinction, to avoid people just doing a "write in" and noting why they were the best. That is not a tough question.

      There is an augment to be made for voting outside the two parties to be sure. Gary Johnson was doing quite a bit better than Libertarians in the past, and he would've done better if he has any real message beyond legalizing marijuana... and camera presence.

      However, my view is that voting for such a candidate is reasonable, only if the better of the two bad ones that can win, will win. Then the massage is delivered, safely.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 1 month ago
        That was my final reasoning on election day 2016. I knew Trump had the win in my state. I was pretty certain Trump had the win overall, too. The polls were purposely misleading based on my analysis. Johnson was disappointing. Like Perot, his choice of a running mate was terrible, but for opposite reasons.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month ago
          I just don't understand why the Libertarian party can't put a solid candidate out there.

          The message is so simple. The arguments so clear. How can it be difficult to find someone articulate?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month ago
            Libertarians have a hard time competing in the arena of promising free stuff.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by bsmith51 1 month ago
              Libertarians and true capitalism have never had an answer to the emotional angst many people feel leading a comfortable lifestyle (and being told they are without compassion) while about 10% of the population either can not or will not survive on their own in a meritocracy.
              Perhaps the answer would be for government to establish a minimal budget each year, then add a percentage for the care of the members of the "can not" population. The "will not" portion should be denied assistance and separated from the general population to feed, like the cannibals they are, off of each other or become hunter-gatherers). We put Indians on reservations; perhaps we should have the same for the "will nots." Then let them earn their way off the reservation, if they're so inclined.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  1 month ago
                That is a great point. I do think:
                If you are one welfare, you should not be able to vote in any election following a period you accepted welfare. Why are you voting? You are a parasite.
                Welfare should not be a handout. It should be transformed to a publicly funded, privately executed programs (not plural) to train, educate and get people self-sufficient, with appropriate incentives for getting people off welfare long-term.
                There will be a group that can not be brought to self-sufficiency, or will resist it. Those need to be in a home, again, privately run.

                This would have a massive effect on poverty, which will have a massive effect on crime, and gun violence (70% of which is among the poor, with handguns, not ARs).
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 1 month ago
            I think it's partially in the nature of the people who are attracted to libertarian ideas, and partially in the purposeful design of the perverted political system. Most attracted to libertarian ideology just want to be left alone to live their lives and don't develop the personal skills required to be a candidate. The person who develops the skills and wants to be a candidate always has a personal agenda that ignores the ideals of individual liberty when it suits their purposes- that is, compromise of principles. Also, imo, no one is immune to being seduced by power. It requires compromised principles; those who refuse to compromise principles don't get power and don't rise to prominence (thanks to the biased, manipulated media) in the perverted political system. The media is manipulated to serve the purposes of the deep state and the deep state abhors people of principle.
            The system is corrupt to its roots; I don't think it can be reformed peacefully.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 3 weeks, 6 days ago
        If we were able to amend/rescind the Twelfth Amendment, third parties may actually stand a chance because it would mean the chance for real power going to the runner-up in a Presidential contest. Until that happens, I don't place any realistic chance in a Presidential race from a third-party candidate - much to the detriment of our great nation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 month ago
    Hiltery was the worst candidate ever.
    I liked Cruz.
    Trump was not beholden to anyone and didn't not need to enrich himself...he did not need a job and he, a businessman, that had to deal with all the bureaucratic idiots, knew exactly what needed to be cleaned up and what creatures needed to be held accountable.

    All toll, it was our best choice, not perfect, but our best alternative.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 1 month ago
    Trump was elected because we wanted a President who would put America first! There was no other candidate who had not already sold his soul to the devil and other global interests. Trump is anything but "Intellectually Compromised". Everything he says or tweets is well thought out and designed to have heads exploding and it is working perfectly. No other candidate I have seen in my entire 67 years has ever had the guts to take on not just our own political disasters but also those of many other countries. He has both of our neighbors to the north and south on the balls of their ass. He has China, Russia, Germany, The EU and UK and almost all of Asia and the middle East on theirs too. Basically, they all need the USA more than the USA needs any of them and he is making that crystal clear. Sure there will be some pain and suffering by us but this is small when compared to the rest of this nasty world. Number one is always the target all the others want to shoot at and destroy but Trump will take the incoming shots and fire right back at them all. In all of this there is only one thing missing from his arsenal and that is the support from all of us here in the USA. Every politician in either party has some sort of ulterior motive as to why they can't hop on the Trump Train and that motive is always SELF where it should be what is best for all of us!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  4 weeks, 1 day ago
      For those who would rather not be nationalistic, the world is a little like socialism now on whole, with the US being the wealthy golden goose. We have been covering everything for so long it is ridiculous.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  TheRogue1000 1 month ago
    Talk about a "conflicting" title as a attention getter!

    1, 2 & 3. Trump. Not without some reservations. He's got the right ideas, he reaches for the prize, he seems to have a good feel for what it is he's doing...and his stats are amazing. I think it's marvelous that he's NOT a politicianl
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rex_Little 1 month ago
    Trump was the best (more accurately, least bad) candidate for the simple reason that the Establishments of both parties hate him. No matter who controls Congress, he's not going to get any big expensive boondoggles passed. By contrast, for an example of what happens when a Republican President has the support of a Republican-controlled Congress, look no farther than Dubya.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rex_Little 1 month ago
    "Could have actually gotten elected in 2016" requires some definition. First, to what point in 2016 does the question relate? Obviously once the nominees were selected there were only two choices, but at the start of the year there were 11 Republicans other than Trump who had filed and participated in debates. (Also some Democrats other than Hillary, but I think we can exclude them from consideration for "best".)

    Next, do we take it that any of those 11 could have actually gotten elected? Clearly not all of them thought so; more than half (including Rand Paul) had withdrawn by the middle of February.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month ago
      If you think someone else could've made it through, make your point.

      I meant in the general election.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Technocracy 3 weeks, 4 days ago
        No one else could have made it though outside either party mainstream. President Trump was and is an outlier at all levels. For the Isaac Asimov fans, he is our mule.

        At this point the electorate is utterly divorced from political cause and effect.

        If you ask any of 99% of voters to define their party's platform you will get a deer in the headlights look and silence, or an answer you can't make sense of.

        It has become so much Us Vs Them with the two major parties being the us and them that nothing any standard candidate says is going to move opinion much, or at all in most cases.

        Even worse the mainstream of each party has become a distorting reflection of the other. Action wise there is little difference between them. Both want more power, more control, bigger government. Both parties say otherwise, but results and statements never match up.

        Third parties have less chance now than ever before.

        Ross Perot was a slap in the face to the GOP and they have fought any outsider ever since. Ralph Nader was the slap in the face to Democrats and they have fought any outsider ever since as well. Look at what they did to Bernie in the run up to 2016.

        The two major parties are going to continue to do anything in their power to squash any candidate that does not toe the party line. Current example would be Tulsi Gabbard. She ripped into Kamala Harris punting her (Kamala) from 2nd to 4th and now Tulsi Gabbard is utterly ignored by the party and the media.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 month ago
    I was a Rand Paul supporter, but was amazed at how poorly he performed in the debates. Trump proved he could manipulate the media like puppets, and I realized over time that he was unembarrassable and bold, and would be the most likely to do exactly as he said he would. We got the best President available.

    A true Objectivist candidate would be ripped to shreds by the media as heartless and mean spirited. I don't anticipate any such critter to ever show up for the contest.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month ago
      Rand is not his dad, unfortunately.

      Agree, in the present environment, the only way a person not selling other people's money survives is on the offensive.

      In the primary, I thought Trump was a clown and had no chance, but looking back, he was the only one that could discuss taking on the deep state without failing the election.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Storo 1 month ago
    I have lived my life voting for the lesser of two evils. We cannot expect to get a candidate for president who embodies everything we may want. Trump has been surprisingly good.
    As to your questions: I think the key phrase in your first two questions are “we could have gotten elected”.
    If the American People were going to vote for someone enthusiastically, it had to be someone from the outside who spoke truth to power, didn’t care about political games, and who would challenge the power structure and the status quo. Enter Donald Trump. The above is some of the reasons he got elected. I firmly believe that were it not for him we would have President Hillary.
    What should we do to improve our freedom? We should vote out every office holder from Congress on down, and replace them with non-lawyers and ordinary citizens who have common sense.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month ago
      It is probably an axiom that one must vote for someone who is not perfect.

      I totally agree, we have to get these manipulative, lifetime-tenured lawyers out of government.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Technocracy 2 weeks, 5 days ago
        Perfection is the mortal enemy of good enough.

        I have no idea who originally said it but is bitingly true.

        The only way to ever have a candidate that YOU will agree with perfectly (100% of the time) would be for you to run for the office. So if we are choosing someone else to delegate our sovereign authority to we have to choose.

        The closest we can come to a rational choice is to determine what issue or issues are most important to us. Further we rate and weigh these issues against the candidates we have to select from. From there we reach a decision that in our judgment is "best". Naturally complicated by the fact that the candidate is going to compromise themselves on some or all of those issues.

        Using that process for want of a better word, I looked at all the announced candidates in 2015. I chose now President Trump then as my best choice. Not as my perfect candidate, but as the single candidate most likely to produce results in MY self interest after the election.

        He hasn't been perfect by any stretch, but his results have been good from my perspective and far far better than I would have expected from any other candidate.

        Overall, my choice has been vindicated by future actions and I stand behind it. Then, now, and next year.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 1 month ago
    Trump may not be the 'Best', but he's way ahead of whatever is in 2nd place!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by bobsprinkle 4 weeks ago
      Absolutely!! At the very least Trump has opened up the Pandoras Box of politics and shown the squirmy little critters...aka politicians. Just maybe someof the critters will jump to a less contaminated box and try to change their ways......at least for a few election cycles.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month ago
      Totally agree! Now, just 2,000 positions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  gharkness 1 month ago
        Ok, 1999 left, then. I started off looking at Trump askance, and only voted for him because I was so scared of Hitlery. Since the election, although there have been some cringe-worthy moments, it seems to me he has grown and matured quite a bit. Not that I ever was even tempted to vote for the Hag. But there was a point at which if they had given us an actual candidate to vote for, I might have considered it. Since the election, I feel like we all dodged a bullet. So much more has become obvious just watching their reactions that I know I did the right thing!

        The very fact that he's NOT "presidential" and he doesn't do things "the correct way," is, in the vernacular, a feature, not a bug, as far as I am concerned.

        I am not a super-politically-knowledgeable person. I have gotten more so since I joined the Gulch, but I still have a long way to go.

        All of which is why I didn't answer when you first asked the question.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month ago
          I learned a lot of law, history and politics here too. Long way to go...hopefully learning right to the end!

          Lot of smart people here. A couple are too "smart" to learn new things. Just ignore them.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 weeks, 4 days ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not quite so ready to divorce politics and economics as independent things. As to whether or not there is "success," is this not an economic value judgment? Isn't the notion of success based entirely on whether or not one judges themselves to be in a superior position after some event in comparison to before?

    As to the rest, if we want to coerce other nations, we go to war with them. Economic sanctions are to encourage and give clear choices, leaving coercion as a more serious response and only when necessary.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 weeks, 6 days ago
    Best candidate was Cruz, but I've been more than pleasantly surprised by Trump. I'll vote for him in 2020, then hope for Cruz in 2024 if our nation survives that long...

    2. Best Objectivist candidate? Both Cruz and Gary Johnson were good candidates. All depends on how far you want to read in the religious aspect of things.

    3. VOTE. Engage your neighbors and encourage them to vote based on the issues - not the hyperbole.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  1 month ago
    Looks like a small cross section of the Gulch has actively responded. The ivory tower either doesn't know how to respond (practical cowards, unsurprising in their comfy chairs/computers. incapable of "gulch", unwilling to compromise), or they approve.

    In the absence of input, we should assume the Gulch overwhelmingly supports Trump. Excellent. Then all other discussions are academic.

    Anyone else want to weigh in, or just let the conclusion stand?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo