Contingency planning for a Trump presidency

[Gin1984]

It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?

That's a good question.  Why can't we?  I guess that would mean we'd have to understand his positions to be anti-illegal immigration, and not just totally anti-Mexican, and for waiting to allow Muslim immigration until we can properly vet who is coming into the country, instead of just saying he's completely anti-Muslim. 

But that wouldn't fit the narrative that he's a complete bigot, so we can't do that.

FYI - The definition of bigot is "a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot).

Why should people who claim to be Christian be given a free pass on being vetted to a country?  Shouldn't everyone be vetted equally?  Why do you think that refusing to accept the members of a particular religious group is somehow not a form of bigotry?

The same reason I'm not concerned about a rabbit in my backyard and I am about a rattlesnake.  If you're coming from a place which has many people who have a stated goal of trying to actively kill Americans, it's different than if you aren't.

If you're concerned about the dangers posted by rattlesnakes, why are you only focusing only on the religion of the animals in your backyard?

In this particular case, religion is a fairly good proxy for danger.

Not really, in my experience.  I'm just as at risk from a Evangelical christian man as I am an extremist Muslim man.

[Kris]

It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?

That's a good question.  Why can't we?  I guess that would mean we'd have to understand his positions to be anti-illegal immigration, and not just totally anti-Mexican, and for waiting to allow Muslim immigration until we can properly vet who is coming into the country, instead of just saying he's completely anti-Muslim. 

But that wouldn't fit the narrative that he's a complete bigot, so we can't do that.

FYI - The definition of bigot is "a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot).

Why should people who claim to be Christian be given a free pass on being vetted to a country?  Shouldn't everyone be vetted equally?  Why do you think that refusing to accept the members of a particular religious group is somehow not a form of bigotry?

The same reason I'm not concerned about a rabbit in my backyard and I am about a rattlesnake.  If you're coming from a place which has many people who have a stated goal of trying to actively kill Americans, it's different than if you aren't.

If you're concerned about the dangers posted by rattlesnakes, why are you only focusing only on the religion of the animals in your backyard?

In this particular case, religion is a fairly good proxy for danger.

Not really, in my experience.  I'm just as at risk from a Evangelical christian man as I am an extremist Muslim man.

Perhaps more, considering that there are so many more Evangelical Christian men around us than extremist Muslim men.

[RosieTR]

Can't you just split the discussion out into a separate thread?

Though I'm not sure this thread ever had a topic to deviate from. The OP basically went into a rant about how Trump was a sociopath and how horrible it would be if he becomes president, comparing it to Germany circa 1929. Then asked people's thoughts.

There are ways to start a discussion about contingency planning without centering it around the person. The original post in this thread centered on Trump and his sociopathness/planned actions. It's not surprising to me the thread discussed that topic.

I specifically mentioned Trump, because, based on some of the points in the article I linked, I think he shows psychological traits more extreme than previous main-party nominees. Some of the replies disagree, some agree, and that was the point. I suppose discussing whether you have a contingency plan because you are or look Muslim or Mexican would not be off-topic. Debating the religious motivation of various brands of terrorists or violent mass-murderers is wandering a little off-topic.

While I suppose I am concerned about the racial and religious rhetoric, what concerns me more and is more relevant to the forum, are statements he has made on economics. For example, Trump insinuated that the US could basically kind of default on its debt and then, in trying to back away from that statement a couple of days later, mentioned that the US would never default because it could just "print money". This is very simplistic thinking. Given that this is an individual who declared bankruptcy something like 5 times, I find it particularly concerning, because that sort of behavior shows extreme risk-taking which could cause the sorts of economic disruptions and political upheaval that eventually lead to fascism in Germany and Italy in the 30s (and numerous other examples of civil war, strife, etc in many parts of Africa and South America). I was wondering if it would be a good idea to make some changes such as purchasing some foreign currency and/or increasing my international exposure. That made me wonder if anyone else had those ideas, or even if some were planning bigger changes. I didn't necessarily want to try to box it in to economics, hence the original post in the off topic section.

[Cyaphas]

For example, Trump insinuated that the US could basically kind of default on its debt and then, in trying to back away from that statement a couple of days later, mentioned that the US would never default because it could just "print money". This is very simplistic thinking. Given that this is an individual who declared bankruptcy something like 5 times, I find it particularly concerning, because that sort of behavior shows extreme risk-taking which could cause the sorts of economic disruptions and political upheaval that eventually lead to fascism in Germany and Italy in the 30s (and numerous other examples of civil war, strife, etc in many parts of Africa and South America).

Historically this is what governments have done. Are you concerned that he's being open about it? Not only that, what other alternative do you propose? We could renegotiate all of the treasuries out there, but that'll go over just as well if not worse.

I think both candidates are monsters bred from their environments. I don't understand why people hate Trump so much and give Hillary a pass. Is this some weird version of "No True Scotsman?"

[Metric Mouse]

For example, Trump insinuated that the US could basically kind of default on its debt and then, in trying to back away from that statement a couple of days later, mentioned that the US would never default because it could just "print money". This is very simplistic thinking. Given that this is an individual who declared bankruptcy something like 5 times, I find it particularly concerning, because that sort of behavior shows extreme risk-taking which could cause the sorts of economic disruptions and political upheaval that eventually lead to fascism in Germany and Italy in the 30s (and numerous other examples of civil war, strife, etc in many parts of Africa and South America).

Historically this is what governments have done. Are you concerned that he's being open about it? Not only that, what other alternative do you propose?

Yeah... I was confused as well. Far be it for Trump to say that he'll do things exactly the way they are being done now...

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

For example, Trump insinuated that the US could basically kind of default on its debt and then, in trying to back away from that statement a couple of days later, mentioned that the US would never default because it could just "print money". This is very simplistic thinking. Given that this is an individual who declared bankruptcy something like 5 times, I find it particularly concerning, because that sort of behavior shows extreme risk-taking which could cause the sorts of economic disruptions and political upheaval that eventually lead to fascism in Germany and Italy in the 30s (and numerous other examples of civil war, strife, etc in many parts of Africa and South America).

Historically this is what governments have done. Are you concerned that he's being open about it? Not only that, what other alternative do you propose?

Yeah... I was confused as well. Far be it for Trump to say that he'll do things exactly the way they are being done now...

Remember the trillion dollar coin all the Democrats wanted to mint?

The funny thing about Trump is that on economic issues he's basically a Democrat, and now that people are hearing their party's ideas from somebody they don't like they're saying "Gee, that's downright moronic!"

And I noticed nobody came up with a reason that blowing up Afghan weddings is OK but preventing Afghans from entering the United States isn't...

[ender]

I don't understand why you keep mentioning things Obama is doing as if that somehow justifies Trump's attitude(s).

Am I missing something about why those are related?

What Trump believes and supports can be stupid completely independent of things that Obama has done during his presidency.

[Metric Mouse]

Remember the trillion dollar coin all the Democrats wanted to mint?

The funny thing about Trump is that on economic issues he's basically a Democrat, and now that people are hearing their party's ideas from somebody they don't like they're saying "Gee, that's downright moronic!"

And I noticed nobody came up with a reason that blowing up Afghan weddings is OK but preventing Afghans from entering the United States isn't...

Good point. Maybe everyone arguing is actually saying that both are bad? Perhaps they believe that those innocent people would be much safer inside the USA than they are in their home countries where the US bombs them regularly? The current administration has knowingly and purposefully bombed American citizens on foreign soil, so the argument could have some merit...

[GuitarStv]

And I noticed nobody came up with a reason that blowing up Afghan weddings is OK but preventing Afghans from entering the United States isn't...

Blowing up Afghan weddings isn't OK.  The US extrajudicial murder program should be a source of national shame, and Obama takes a lot of blame for it.  What does that have to do with Trump's proposed policies of discriminating against Muslims entering the US though?

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

I don't understand why you keep mentioning things Obama is doing as if that somehow justifies Trump's attitude(s).

Am I missing something about why those are related?

What Trump believes and supports can be stupid completely independent of things that Obama has done during his presidency.

Most of the complaints I've seen are from people who voted for Obama in 2012, during which the drone program was very publicly discussed. These people seem more upset about Trump's entry ban than they do about Obama's killing, and I don't understand that at all.

Of course I understand that many people feel as I do, that both are wrong. But if you voted for Obama in 2012 you don't have much room to complain about Trump's proposal, because obviously being blown up is worse than being prevented from entering the United States.

[winkeyman]

I don't understand why you keep mentioning things Obama is doing as if that somehow justifies Trump's attitude(s).

Am I missing something about why those are related?

What Trump believes and supports can be stupid completely independent of things that Obama has done during his presidency.

Most of the complaints I've seen are from people who voted for Obama in 2012, during which the drone program was very publicly discussed. These people seem more upset about Trump's entry ban than they do about Obama's killing, and I don't understand that at all.

Of course I understand that many people feel as I do, that both are wrong. But if you voted for Obama in 2012 you don't have much room to complain about Trump's proposal, because obviously being blown up is worse than being prevented from entering the United States.

A cynical person would say it is because the people in question don't care about the lives of people getting bombed, or really care wether or not Muslims can get into the US.

They only "care" about that which wins them political points.

[forummm]

For example, Trump insinuated that the US could basically kind of default on its debt and then, in trying to back away from that statement a couple of days later, mentioned that the US would never default because it could just "print money". This is very simplistic thinking. Given that this is an individual who declared bankruptcy something like 5 times, I find it particularly concerning, because that sort of behavior shows extreme risk-taking which could cause the sorts of economic disruptions and political upheaval that eventually lead to fascism in Germany and Italy in the 30s (and numerous other examples of civil war, strife, etc in many parts of Africa and South America).

Historically this is what governments have done. Are you concerned that he's being open about it? Not only that, what other alternative do you propose?

Yeah... I was confused as well. Far be it for Trump to say that he'll do things exactly the way they are being done now...

Remember the trillion dollar coin all the Democrats wanted to mint?

The funny thing about Trump is that on economic issues he's basically a Democrat, and now that people are hearing their party's ideas from somebody they don't like they're saying "Gee, that's downright moronic!"

And I noticed nobody came up with a reason that blowing up Afghan weddings is OK but preventing Afghans from entering the United States isn't...

Trump's ideas under discussion here are not Democratic Party ideas. The idea of defaulting on the debt is the moronic and dangerous idea that people are ridiculing. Absolute idiocy that shows his complete lack of understanding about how some really important things work.

The idea of "printing more money" is a very bipartisan practice for the entire history of the nation. The parties just differ on what they want to spend the money on. Cheney said "deficits don't matter". Republicans want to borrow money to pay for wars and tax cuts for the wealthy. Democrats want to borrow money for social programs.

And I've said many times that the Bush/Obama drone program is likely illegal (I'm not a lawyer) and certainly unethical and a bad idea to boot. Presidents have been allowing or encouraging the assassination of people around the world for decades. It's just a lot easier to do now. It's still wrong and stupid.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

The idea of "printing more money" is a very bipartisan practice for the entire history of the nation. The parties just differ on what they want to spend the money on. Cheney said "deficits don't matter". Republicans want to borrow money to pay for wars and tax cuts for the wealthy. Democrats want to borrow money for social programs.

Unfortunately they all love war. I laugh bitterly when I see people with Obama stickers where the O has been made into a peace sign. They sure didn't get what they thought they would!

And I've said many times that the Bush/Obama drone program is likely illegal (I'm not a lawyer) and certainly unethical and a bad idea to boot. Presidents have been allowing or encouraging the assassination of people around the world for decades. It's just a lot easier to do now. It's still wrong and stupid.

Are you going to vote for Clinton, who will continue it?

[GuitarStv]

I don't understand why you keep mentioning things Obama is doing as if that somehow justifies Trump's attitude(s).

Am I missing something about why those are related?

What Trump believes and supports can be stupid completely independent of things that Obama has done during his presidency.

Most of the complaints I've seen are from people who voted for Obama in 2012, during which the drone program was very publicly discussed. These people seem more upset about Trump's entry ban than they do about Obama's killing, and I don't understand that at all.

Of course I understand that many people feel as I do, that both are wrong. But if you voted for Obama in 2012 you don't have much room to complain about Trump's proposal, because obviously being blown up is worse than being prevented from entering the United States.

A cynical person would say it is because the people in question don't care about the lives of people getting bombed, or really care wether or not Muslims can get into the US.

They only "care" about that which wins them political points.

Drone strikes aren't really a party specific problem.  They happened as soon as they were possible under Republican leadership, and they were ramped up under Democratic leadership.  Given that Trump has indicated he wants embrace terrorism of his own by 'taking out' the families of terrorists, is there any real hope of a reduction of drone strikes in the future should he be elected?  Clinton was there every step of the way as Obama was ordering drone strikes, so there's little hope in that direction.

We have a situation where drone strikes will be going on no matter what happens election-wise.  So you've got a lesser evils choice between continued drone strikes (Clinton), or continued drone strikes coupled with religious persecution of immigrants (Trump).

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

I don't understand why you keep mentioning things Obama is doing as if that somehow justifies Trump's attitude(s).

Am I missing something about why those are related?

What Trump believes and supports can be stupid completely independent of things that Obama has done during his presidency.

Most of the complaints I've seen are from people who voted for Obama in 2012, during which the drone program was very publicly discussed. These people seem more upset about Trump's entry ban than they do about Obama's killing, and I don't understand that at all.

Of course I understand that many people feel as I do, that both are wrong. But if you voted for Obama in 2012 you don't have much room to complain about Trump's proposal, because obviously being blown up is worse than being prevented from entering the United States.

A cynical person would say it is because the people in question don't care about the lives of people getting bombed, or really care wether or not Muslims can get into the US.

They only "care" about that which wins them political points.

Drone strikes aren't really a party specific problem.  They happened as soon as they were possible under Republican leadership, and they were ramped up under Democratic leadership.  Given that Trump has indicated he wants embrace terrorism of his own by 'taking out' the families of terrorists, is there any real hope of a reduction of drone strikes in the future should he be elected?  Clinton was there every step of the way as Obama was ordering drone strikes, so there's little hope in that direction.

We have a situation where drone strikes will be going on no matter what happens election-wise.  So you've got a lesser evils choice between continued drone strikes (Clinton), or continued drone strikes coupled with religious persecution of immigrants (Trump).

The Libertarian Party is on the ballot in all 50 states and provides an option to stop the killing.

[forummm]

The idea of "printing more money" is a very bipartisan practice for the entire history of the nation. The parties just differ on what they want to spend the money on. Cheney said "deficits don't matter". Republicans want to borrow money to pay for wars and tax cuts for the wealthy. Democrats want to borrow money for social programs.

Unfortunately they all love war. I laugh bitterly when I see people with Obama stickers where the O has been made into a peace sign. They sure didn't get what they thought they would!

And I've said many times that the Bush/Obama drone program is likely illegal (I'm not a lawyer) and certainly unethical and a bad idea to boot. Presidents have been allowing or encouraging the assassination of people around the world for decades. It's just a lot easier to do now. It's still wrong and stupid.

Are you going to vote for Clinton, who will continue it?

Yes, both parties are overly warrish for my tastes. But there is a clear difference in the amount of war they want to have as well. You have the GOP side where every candidate is trying to out-war (and war crime) each other. Unfortunately, Clinton, while still not as bad as the GOP, wants to be "more muscular" on defense than Obama. Sanders at least wants to go in a more sane direction.

If she's the nominee, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. Unfortunately, as long as we have this election financing system, you don't get to pick who the candidates are unless you're a billionaire. And as long as we have this electoral system, a 3rd party candidate is almost never viable. Sanders was the only independent (and non R or D) in Congress until King. And they are both from small states where people can get to know them.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

So you'll vote for more killing because voting Libertarian isn't...practical? I don't get it.

[forummm]

So you'll vote for more killing because voting Libertarian isn't...practical? I don't get it.

Partly. The reality is that a vote for some 3rd party candidate instead of Clinton is a half vote for Trump. But there are also other issues besides foreign policy. Some of which Libertarians are great at. Some of which they are just unacceptable.

[GuitarStv]

I suspect that the democrat and republican bipartisan support of drone strikes will ebb if/when this problem is fixed:  http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/poll-support-drone-strikes-118372

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

So you'll vote for more killing because voting Libertarian isn't...practical? I don't get it.

Partly. The reality is that a vote for some 3rd party candidate instead of Clinton is a half vote for Trump. But there are also other issues besides foreign policy. Some of which Libertarians are great at. Some of which they are just unacceptable.

What issues are a higher priority for you than our government killing innocents?

[Telecaster]

For example, Trump insinuated that the US could basically kind of default on its debt and then, in trying to back away from that statement a couple of days later, mentioned that the US would never default because it could just "print money". This is very simplistic thinking. Given that this is an individual who declared bankruptcy something like 5 times, I find it particularly concerning, because that sort of behavior shows extreme risk-taking which could cause the sorts of economic disruptions and political upheaval that eventually lead to fascism in Germany and Italy in the 30s (and numerous other examples of civil war, strife, etc in many parts of Africa and South America).

Historically this is what governments have done. Are you concerned that he's being open about it? Not only that, what other alternative do you propose? We could renegotiate all of the treasuries out there, but that'll go over just as well if not worse.

Historically it was what some governments have done when they have no other options. 

Here's my alternative:  We simply pay as agreed.  This is extremely easy to do.  Currently the interest on the national debt is 1.3% of GDP.  That is very low by historical standards.  Less than half of what it was in the 1980s, for example.  If we could do it then, how come we can't do it now?  The answer is we can do it now, just some people would prefer not to. 

"But what if interest rates go up?" you ask.  "Won't the Great Ogre of the East come and eat us?"  No.  The Treasury has been pragmatically locking up debt in longer and longer term bonds.  And interest rates could go up quite a lot before we were paying as much in debt service as we were

"But the deficit will just keep growing and growing!" you say.  But the deficit isn't growing.  It has gotten smaller each year for the last eight years.  And if we simply raised taxes to 1990s levels, the deficit would be pretty much wiped out.  Remember the 1990s?  Everything was fine.  Slightly higher taxes didn't kill us back then, and they won't in the future either.

"But think how awesome it would be it we could just stiff our creditors and keep the money!"  But it really wouldn't be that awesome.  Stuff we buy internationally--like oil--is almost always priced in dollars.   That protects us from currency fluctuation risks.   That's a nontrivial issue.   Oil is a huge part of our economy.   The reason why oil and other commodities are priced in dollars is because dollars are safe and stable.  If we default like Trump proposes, they won't be safe and stable.   Having a safe and stable economy also makes things like mortgages and credit in general cheap and abundant. 

And finally, I personally feel (quite strongly too) that our word should mean something.  We borrowed the money with expectation it would be paid back. A person who doesn't pay their debts when they easily can is a pretty sorry individual.    I won't be that person, and I have a pretty dim view of people who run their affairs like that. 

[rosaz]

What issues are a higher priority for you than our government killing innocents?

Climate change. The US government needs to help push progress on this, or there probably won't be much or any progress... and then we might be looking at loss of life in the hundreds of millions (globally).

I could definitely see going for the Libertarian party if they were more responsible on this one issue, but at the moment, they're not. Not that Clinton's spectacular either, but still better than Johnson.

[GuitarStv]

What issues are a higher priority for you than our government killing innocents?

Climate change. The US government needs to help push progress on this, or there probably won't be much or any progress... and then we might be looking at loss of life in the hundreds of millions (globally).

I could definitely see going for the Libertarian party if they were more responsible on this one issue, but at the moment, they're not. Not that Clinton's spectacular either, but still better than Johnson.

The green party is also anti-drone strikes.

[rosaz]

The green party is also anti-drone strikes.

Well, you've got me there :)

[RosieTR]

For example, Trump insinuated that the US could basically kind of default on its debt and then, in trying to back away from that statement a couple of days later, mentioned that the US would never default because it could just "print money". This is very simplistic thinking. Given that this is an individual who declared bankruptcy something like 5 times, I find it particularly concerning, because that sort of behavior shows extreme risk-taking which could cause the sorts of economic disruptions and political upheaval that eventually lead to fascism in Germany and Italy in the 30s (and numerous other examples of civil war, strife, etc in many parts of Africa and South America).

Historically this is what governments have done. Are you concerned that he's being open about it? Not only that, what other alternative do you propose? We could renegotiate all of the treasuries out there, but that'll go over just as well if not worse.

Historically it was what some governments have done when they have no other options. 

Here's my alternative:  We simply pay as agreed.  This is extremely easy to do.  Currently the interest on the national debt is 1.3% of GDP.  That is very low by historical standards.  Less than half of what it was in the 1980s, for example.  If we could do it then, how come we can't do it now?  The answer is we can do it now, just some people would prefer not to. 

"But what if interest rates go up?" you ask.  "Won't the Great Ogre of the East come and eat us?"  No.  The Treasury has been pragmatically locking up debt in longer and longer term bonds.  And interest rates could go up quite a lot before we were paying as much in debt service as we were

"But the deficit will just keep growing and growing!" you say.  But the deficit isn't growing.  It has gotten smaller each year for the last eight years.  And if we simply raised taxes to 1990s levels, the deficit would be pretty much wiped out.  Remember the 1990s?  Everything was fine.  Slightly higher taxes didn't kill us back then, and they won't in the future either.

"But think how awesome it would be it we could just stiff our creditors and keep the money!"  But it really wouldn't be that awesome.  Stuff we buy internationally--like oil--is almost always priced in dollars.   That protects us from currency fluctuation risks.   That's a nontrivial issue.   Oil is a huge part of our economy.   The reason why oil and other commodities are priced in dollars is because dollars are safe and stable.  If we default like Trump proposes, they won't be safe and stable.   Having a safe and stable economy also makes things like mortgages and credit in general cheap and abundant. 

And finally, I personally feel (quite strongly too) that our word should mean something.  We borrowed the money with expectation it would be paid back. A person who doesn't pay their debts when they easily can is a pretty sorry individual.    I won't be that person, and I have a pretty dim view of people who run their affairs like that.

Well-said, Telecaster!!! Pretty much what I was about to write but you beat me to it!

I would like to add that the "full faith and credit of the United States" sentiment stems all the way back to the beginning of the nation, when the whole debt situation was way, way worse.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

What issues are a higher priority for you than our government killing innocents?

Climate change. The US government needs to help push progress on this, or there probably won't be much or any progress... and then we might be looking at loss of life in the hundreds of millions (globally).

I could definitely see going for the Libertarian party if they were more responsible on this one issue, but at the moment, they're not. Not that Clinton's spectacular either, but still better than Johnson.

Shall I check back with you after Clinton's first term to see how she did on climate change versus the number of people killed by her administration? I really doubt your decision will look good.

[RosieTR]

What issues are a higher priority for you than our government killing innocents?

Climate change. The US government needs to help push progress on this, or there probably won't be much or any progress... and then we might be looking at loss of life in the hundreds of millions (globally).

I could definitely see going for the Libertarian party if they were more responsible on this one issue, but at the moment, they're not. Not that Clinton's spectacular either, but still better than Johnson.

Yes, climate change. Also gender equality, especially not allowing someone else's religious beliefs interfere with my health care decisions.

But, there's a lot I disagree with the Libertarians on, and going into it would wander even further off topic. So yes, in the spirit of compromise which is how politics is always done, I would vote for someone who has said she will be "more aggressive" abroad, even though I disagree with that, when I agree with many other things.

As for those who are perplexed as to why one might "hate" Trump but not Hillary...well, they aren't the same person. In my view, Hillary has spent her life so far in various political roles, which have included trying to better the lives of various people, including the poor, women and people of color. Also in my view, Trump has spent his life trying whatever he could to be in the spotlight, with little regard to anyone else at all. Both of them have made various mistakes but IN MY VIEW one of them has more likely learned from them.
And, I would not say that I "hate" Trump, any more than I might find any completely self-centered, patronizing, wealthy man distasteful. But I *worry* more about what he might do than I did for, say, Romney.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

What issues are a higher priority for you than our government killing innocents?

Climate change. The US government needs to help push progress on this, or there probably won't be much or any progress... and then we might be looking at loss of life in the hundreds of millions (globally).

I could definitely see going for the Libertarian party if they were more responsible on this one issue, but at the moment, they're not. Not that Clinton's spectacular either, but still better than Johnson.

Yes, climate change. Also gender equality, especially not allowing someone else's religious beliefs interfere with my health care decisions.

Who pays for birth control: more important than the lives of Afghans. It's good to know your priorities, I guess. Amazing.

[RosieTR]

What issues are a higher priority for you than our government killing innocents?

Climate change. The US government needs to help push progress on this, or there probably won't be much or any progress... and then we might be looking at loss of life in the hundreds of millions (globally).

I could definitely see going for the Libertarian party if they were more responsible on this one issue, but at the moment, they're not. Not that Clinton's spectacular either, but still better than Johnson.

Shall I check back with you after Clinton's first term to see how she did on climate change versus the number of people killed by her administration? I really doubt your decision will look good.

This isn't about Clinton, it's about Trump. Trump doesn't give a crap about climate change and has said he will purposely "go after" the families of terrorists, which suggests not only accidently killing innocents, but purposely targeting them. Also what ISIS does, and what North Korea does to their "enemies". So that would be worse overseas killing of civilians + steps backward on the climate change situation.

[rosaz]

What issues are a higher priority for you than our government killing innocents?

Climate change. The US government needs to help push progress on this, or there probably won't be much or any progress... and then we might be looking at loss of life in the hundreds of millions (globally).

I could definitely see going for the Libertarian party if they were more responsible on this one issue, but at the moment, they're not. Not that Clinton's spectacular either, but still better than Johnson.

Shall I check back with you after Clinton's first term to see how she did on climate change versus the number of people killed by her administration? I really doubt your decision will look good.

Absolutely. Though I doubt that by 2021 we'd be able to do a full accounting of whatever her climate change impact is or isn't. But in 2031, sure we can check back for a (people saved) minus (people killed) approximation.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

What issues are a higher priority for you than our government killing innocents?

Climate change. The US government needs to help push progress on this, or there probably won't be much or any progress... and then we might be looking at loss of life in the hundreds of millions (globally).

I could definitely see going for the Libertarian party if they were more responsible on this one issue, but at the moment, they're not. Not that Clinton's spectacular either, but still better than Johnson.

Shall I check back with you after Clinton's first term to see how she did on climate change versus the number of people killed by her administration? I really doubt your decision will look good.

This isn't about Clinton, it's about Trump. Trump doesn't give a crap about climate change and has said he will purposely "go after" the families of terrorists, which suggests not only accidently killing innocents, but purposely targeting them. Also what ISIS does, and what North Korea does to their "enemies". So that would be worse overseas killing of civilians + steps backward on the climate change situation.

As you can imagine, there's no risk of me voting for Trump. I just don't see Clinton being much better in terms of human rights. And I have no sympathy for the idea that you have to vote for one of the two of them. "Don't vote for human rights violators" seems like it should be a pretty easy rule to follow.

[RosieTR]

Yes, climate change. Also gender equality, especially not allowing someone else's religious beliefs interfere with my health care decisions.

Who pays for birth control: more important than the lives of Afghans. It's good to know your priorities, I guess. Amazing.

Birth control IS amazing, for the whole human race!!! Controlling our own population as human beings has the potential of not only stemming climate change, but also reducing conflicts which are usually fought over lack of resources. Too bad every GOP candidate has to poo-poo this, to get the extreme Christians onboard. Trump has already put forth a list of nominees to the Supreme Court who are anti-abortion and some are even against basic birth control. Birth control saves many women's lives from ending early from pregnancy, giving birth, or various forms of cancer. So it saves lives, and beyond that, it vastly improves lives of the great majority of women who have access to birth control in the US and many other countries.

The lives of Afghan people who happen to be women are far more threatened by members of their own society than by US drones. AND would not be helped, at all, by Trump.

[RosieTR]

As you can imagine, there's no risk of me voting for Trump. I just don't see Clinton being much better in terms of human rights. And I have no sympathy for the idea that you have to vote for one of the two of them. "Don't vote for human rights violators" seems like it should be a pretty easy rule to follow.

If that's your one issue, go for it. I never said I think Clinton will be grand, on this issue, compared to Trump. But there are a whole lot of other issues that I DO agree with her on. And several issues that I DON'T agree with Libertarians on. So not sure what the problem is here.

[Metric Mouse]

Yes, climate change. Also gender equality, especially not allowing someone else's religious beliefs interfere with my health care decisions.

Who pays for birth control: more important than the lives of Afghans. It's good to know your priorities, I guess. Amazing.

Birth control IS amazing, for the whole human race!!! Controlling our own population as human beings has the potential of not only stemming climate change, but also reducing conflicts which are usually fought over lack of resources.....

...The lives of Afghan people who happen to be women are far more threatened by members of their own society than by US drones. AND would not be helped, at all, by Trump.

This sounds suspiciously like an argument for continued drone strikes and/or escalating war?

Not sure even Clinton would be able to get Afghan women birth control. Maybe something to look into though!

[forummm]

I suspect that the democrat and republican bipartisan support of drone strikes will ebb if/when this problem is fixed:  http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/poll-support-drone-strikes-118372

Those poll results are also partly a function of the fact that both parties accept it. So hardly anyone talks about it and what it really is and why it's a problem. Yes, there would still be a lot of people happy about any brown/Muslim/foreigners getting killed even if politicians were openly against it and made it a political issue. But fewer.

So you'll vote for more killing because voting Libertarian isn't...practical? I don't get it.

Partly. The reality is that a vote for some 3rd party candidate instead of Clinton is a half vote for Trump. But there are also other issues besides foreign policy. Some of which Libertarians are great at. Some of which they are just unacceptable.

What issues are a higher priority for you than our government killing innocents?

We probably kill more innocent people inside the country. And allow even more to be killed. And even more to have their life effectively taken away by locking them up. Literally millions of times more people. And if someone is going to start more war, then they will probably kill many more innocents than the drone strikes do.

And there are many other issues that also impact life and death (like the environment, pollution, economic opportunity, etc). But I also place value on issues that don't immediately result in people dying.

Yes, climate change. Also gender equality, especially not allowing someone else's religious beliefs interfere with my health care decisions.

Who pays for birth control: more important than the lives of Afghans. It's good to know your priorities, I guess. Amazing.

Half of all pregnancies in the US are unintended. You could save many more unwanted children from being born into a bad situation if everyone had access to the best contraceptive methods for them. If you are someone that is upset about abortion, then contraception would dramatically decrease the utilization of that procedure as well. The most effective methods are $1000 or so up front if you don't have insurance coverage. Much cheaper than a pregnancy, but not everyone has that kind of cash (see another active thread on the forum today).

[forummm]

As you can imagine, there's no risk of me voting for Trump. I just don't see Clinton being much better in terms of human rights. And I have no sympathy for the idea that you have to vote for one of the two of them. "Don't vote for human rights violators" seems like it should be a pretty easy rule to follow.

Not voting for Clinton is the same has a half vote for Trump. Some people will make the choice between the lesser of two flawed options.

Also, maybe it's my cynicism. But I wonder even if whatever libertarian got into office, if he'd just end up doing similar things. Rand Paul started talking like a warmonger and big defense spender during his campaign. Maybe it's because he needed to to get elected/get donations. Total conspiracy speculation: Maybe the intelligence and defense sector would assassinate a president who shut them down. I think it may already have happened to JFK.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

I do actually think birth control should be free. Not in the included-in-insurance sense, just...free. Paid for by taxpayer money.

But it's more important to me that our government doesn't go out and kill people for no good reason. And yes, forummm, there's lots of that inside the United States too, and if HRC were proposing ending the drug war and severely reducing the prison population, I'd consider voting for her. But I have seen no indication that she plans to reduce, or curtail, the internal or external human rights violations perpetrated by our government.

[Cyaphas]

Historically it was what some governments have done when they have no other options. 

Here's my alternative:  We simply pay as agreed.  This is extremely easy to do.  Currently the interest on the national debt is 1.3% of GDP.  That is very low by historical standards.  Less than half of what it was in the 1980s, for example.  If we could do it then, how come we can't do it now?  The answer is we can do it now, just some people would prefer not to. 

"But what if interest rates go up?" you ask.  "Won't the Great Ogre of the East come and eat us?"  No.  The Treasury has been pragmatically locking up debt in longer and longer term bonds.  And interest rates could go up quite a lot before we were paying as much in debt service as we were

"But the deficit will just keep growing and growing!" you say.  But the deficit isn't growing.  It has gotten smaller each year for the last eight years.  And if we simply raised taxes to 1990s levels, the deficit would be pretty much wiped out.  Remember the 1990s?  Everything was fine.  Slightly higher taxes didn't kill us back then, and they won't in the future either.

"But think how awesome it would be it we could just stiff our creditors and keep the money!"  But it really wouldn't be that awesome.  Stuff we buy internationally--like oil--is almost always priced in dollars.   That protects us from currency fluctuation risks.   That's a nontrivial issue.   Oil is a huge part of our economy.   The reason why oil and other commodities are priced in dollars is because dollars are safe and stable.  If we default like Trump proposes, they won't be safe and stable.   Having a safe and stable economy also makes things like mortgages and credit in general cheap and abundant. 

And finally, I personally feel (quite strongly too) that our word should mean something.  We borrowed the money with expectation it would be paid back. A person who doesn't pay their debts when they easily can is a pretty sorry individual.    I won't be that person, and I have a pretty dim view of people who run their affairs like that.

You're really cherry picking here. There is a difference between deficit and debt. Also, you sited the last 8 years, 7 of which has been a crazy bull market fueled by free fed money. We're out of interest rates to drop and theoretically they wouldn't have had to drop the interest rates if everything was/is as hunky dory as you say.

[forummm]

I do actually think birth control should be free. Not in the included-in-insurance sense, just...free. Paid for by taxpayer money.

But it's more important to me that our government doesn't go out and kill people for no good reason. And yes, forummm, there's lots of that inside the United States too, and if HRC were proposing ending the drug war and severely reducing the prison population, I'd consider voting for her. But I have seen no indication that she plans to reduce, or curtail, the internal or external human rights violations perpetrated by our government.

I'll take your contraception one further and say that I think all healthcare should be covered by the government. It doesn't have to all be free, and should be limited to only medically necessary services. A system like in other industrialized nations would be less inequitable and cost about half as much.

I am also pessimistic about Clinton making too much positive change in those regards. But I see some change coming. Trump appears to be steps in the wrong direction though.

[nobodyspecial]

I'll take your contraception one further and say that I think all healthcare should be covered by the government. It doesn't have to all be free, and should be limited to only medically necessary services. A system like in other industrialized nations would be less inequitable and cost about half as much.

But that would just be the start, then there would be demands to make police and fire and rescue services free, then schools - then it's just socialism.

[Telecaster]

You're really cherry picking here. There is a difference between deficit and debt. Also, you sited the last 8 years, 7 of which has been a crazy bull market fueled by free fed money. We're out of interest rates to drop and theoretically they wouldn't have had to drop the interest rates if everything was/is as hunky dory as you say.

Now you're really, really, cherry picking and throwing in a red herring or two for good measure.  I didn't say anything about the economy, I simply talked about the budget.  I'll buy you a steak dinner for two at the restaurant of your choice if you can point out where I said the economy has been hunky dory for the last eight years.   If I didn't mention the economy, then you buy me a steak dinner.  Shake? 

I did say the deficit has gotten smaller each of the last eight years.   Mea Culpa, it was actually each of the seven years and only project to be lower next year.  But is has decreased by roughly a trillion dollars per year from 2009 until now.  I don't know your background, but a trillion dollars per years is a lot of money to me.

But since you brought up the economy and raging bull market, let's talk about it.  You seem to be saying that the increase in government revenue (and hence the decrease in the deficit) is from the stock market, presumably in the form of capital gains taxes.   The vast majority of federal government revenue is from income tax and payroll taxes.  Of that, a very small percentage is from capital gains taxes of all types (including real estate).  Maybe 5-7% something like that.  So no, your theory is off by a couple orders of magnitude.

[davisgang90]

The reason government revenue increases during a bull market is that businesses are more likely to hire and people are more likely to spend since they have more money in their pocket.

More jobs and more consumer spending equals more tax revenue.  I agree capital gains doesn't pay much of a role.

[Cyaphas]

Now you're really, really, cherry picking and throwing in a red herring or two for good measure.  I didn't say anything about the economy, I simply talked about the budget.  I'll buy you a steak dinner for two at the restaurant of your choice if you can point out where I said the economy has been hunky dory for the last eight years.   If I didn't mention the economy, then you buy me a steak dinner.  Shake? 

I did say the deficit has gotten smaller each of the last eight years.   Mea Culpa, it was actually each of the seven years and only project to be lower next year.  But is has decreased by roughly a trillion dollars per year from 2009 until now.  I don't know your background, but a trillion dollars per years is a lot of money to me.

But since you brought up the economy and raging bull market, let's talk about it.  You seem to be saying that the increase in government revenue (and hence the decrease in the deficit) is from the stock market, presumably in the form of capital gains taxes.   The vast majority of federal government revenue is from income tax and payroll taxes.  Of that, a very small percentage is from capital gains taxes of all types (including real estate).  Maybe 5-7% something like that.  So no, your theory is off by a couple orders of magnitude.

You're doing it again. You grabbed one of the worst years 2009, in modern history to compare everything else to. "We're spending less on the credit card than we did in our worst year in the last 10! Go us!"

Currently the interest on the national debt is 1.3% of GDP.

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT - that would be mentioning the economy.

You also sited the current numbers with a possible housing bubble and stock bubble, fed by? You guessed it, the FED. You left out Social security, Medicare & Medicaid obligations that are going to heavily effect the debt/deficit. Especially considering the age demographics of the boomers retiring.

You're being EXTREMELY overly optimistic. You're telling me the car is going to maintain going 60mph for the rest of our trip when we're running on fumes and 10k miles past an oil change. 10 miles ago we were going 60... 10 miles from now... who knows?

So... Do I get to pick the place or... Do you have a preference, you buying and all.

[Stache-O-Lantern]

As you can imagine, there's no risk of me voting for Trump. I just don't see Clinton being much better in terms of human rights. And I have no sympathy for the idea that you have to vote for one of the two of them. "Don't vote for human rights violators" seems like it should be a pretty easy rule to follow.

Not voting for Clinton is the same has a half vote for Trump. Some people will make the choice between the lesser of two flawed options.

And then whichever side loses may blame either the libertarians or greens for siphoning off some votes, even if their candidates were arguably better.  That's major party/political machine arrogance.  Some people will support what they consider a better option, even knowing they will lose.

From my point of view, voting for Clinton is more like a half vote for Trump.  Kind of like, i see Trump as a -10, and Clinton as a -5.  if I vote for an option i think is bad, i would actually feel like i was casting half a vote for "even worse".

I know the response to my post is something along the lines of, "Winning is all that matters in our system."  I just can't bring myself to participate in that.

[fa]

I have contingencies for a President Trump, Hillary or Bernie!  The same for all three.  Continue doing what I am doing and pay no attention to the usual noise coming out of Washington.  Continue to not watch TV.  Continue to live below my means.  I will do that no matter who becomes president.  Will it matter to my daily life who becomes president?  Uh, no.  I probably only really matters to the people who have direct connections with a candidate, and who stand to gain a lot from their candidate winning the race.

As usual, political noise is just that: unnecessary distractions.  No matter who becomes president, people will not be heading to the border with the U-Haul.  Well, except maybe a handful of partisans of the losing side.  Even those return home after a little cooling off.  Carry on, nothing to see here.

[Telecaster]

Currently the interest on the national debt is 1.3% of GDP.

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT - that would be mentioning the economy.

You claimed that I said the economy was "hunky dory."  No where did I comment on the state of the economy. 

Do you have a honest bone in your entire body?

[Cyaphas]

You've sited some of the best years and compared them to the worst years. That's a fact. You then go on to project our future by using those numbers. You're accusing me of being dishonest? Come on man... Steak isn't that expensive.

[RosieTR]

I do actually think birth control should be free. Not in the included-in-insurance sense, just...free. Paid for by taxpayer money.

But it's more important to me that our government doesn't go out and kill people for no good reason. And yes, forummm, there's lots of that inside the United States too, and if HRC were proposing ending the drug war and severely reducing the prison population, I'd consider voting for her. But I have seen no indication that she plans to reduce, or curtail, the internal or external human rights violations perpetrated by our government.

I guess you and I will just have to disagree. I'd rather vote for a person with whom I do not 100% agree than a person that has a very low chance of winning. I could write in the name of a candidate I totally, 100% agree with, but who would never win. Yes, that would maybe make me feel like I'm holding true to some lofty standard but in practical terms it's throwing away my vote. And who do I agree with 100%? Me. Instead, I choose a front runner with flaws over a front runner with bigger flaws IMO. Others can choose differently. If it were a two party system that had Libertarian vs current GOP, yeah I would vote Libertarian. If it were Dems vs Libertarian, probably Dems. If there were multiple viable parties then I'd think we were making good progress.

[Metric Mouse]

I do actually think birth control should be free. Not in the included-in-insurance sense, just...free. Paid for by taxpayer money.

But it's more important to me that our government doesn't go out and kill people for no good reason. And yes, forummm, there's lots of that inside the United States too, and if HRC were proposing ending the drug war and severely reducing the prison population, I'd consider voting for her. But I have seen no indication that she plans to reduce, or curtail, the internal or external human rights violations perpetrated by our government.

I guess you and I will just have to disagree. I'd rather vote for a person with whom I do not 100% agree than a person that has a very low chance of winning. I could write in the name of a candidate I totally, 100% agree with, but who would never win. Yes, that would maybe make me feel like I'm holding true to some lofty standard but in practical terms it's throwing away my vote. And who do I agree with 100%? Me. Instead, I choose a front runner with flaws over a front runner with bigger flaws IMO. Others can choose differently. If it were a two party system that had Libertarian vs current GOP, yeah I would vote Libertarian. If it were Dems vs Libertarian, probably Dems. If there were multiple viable parties then I'd think we were making good progress.

At this point, a vote for Trump or Sanders would probably be the most effective way to start progressing away from the current two-party system.

[forummm]

At this point, a vote for Trump or Sanders would probably be the most effective way to start progressing away from the current two-party system.

I think that nominating Sanders would actually preserve the 2-party system because it would so dramatically increase the popularity of the party with independents. And, his positions are the positions that most Clinton voters really want as well. Many Clinton voters have allowed themselves to be talked out of them in order to be more comfortable supporting here. They used to realize that taking huge checks from special interests would bias a person (and is also a response to many years of service in favor of those donors). But now they are conveniently forgetting that. They also want a true universal health system, a higher minimum wage, less warrish foreign policy, etc, that Clinton tells them she won't even try to fight for, or is openly opposed to.