We should've picked Hillary, but Trump is the best
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If a moderate candidate gains momentum, Trump could easily lose. Consider Tim Ryan.
Please explain.
You prefer, Hillary, or Bernie?
Tariffs are bad and useless and stupid. They will make him lose in 2020
Foreign policy is good. Other countries should respect us
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anyway, not supporting my case but interesting-
quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/08/a...
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.
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.
Smart USA companies will get the message rearrange their supply chains asap. I think tariffs will ratchet up to 100% soon
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
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?
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.
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.
The message is so simple. The arguments so clear. How can it be difficult to find someone articulate?
I have a shirt "Teach a man to fish and he eats for life. Give a man another man's fish and he votes for you".
"Why do you want to pay more?"
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.
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).
The system is corrupt to its roots; I don't think it can be reformed peacefully.
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.
Still waiting for the Ivory Tower to weigh in. My guess is, they can't deal with this necessary compromise.
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
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.
I meant in the general election.
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.
Bernie supporters were like 75% Trump over Hillary. Wanted change. Maybe still do
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.
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.
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.
I totally agree, we have to get these manipulative, lifetime-tenured lawyers out of government.
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.
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.
Lot of smart people here. A couple are too "smart" to learn new things. Just ignore them.
Rand Paul
Cut taxes by 80%
Rand still compromises too often for me.
Eliminate the income tax completely. It is counter-productive by its very nature and it only serves the socialist state.
16th Amendment is THE PROBLEM. So poorly worded.
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.
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.
That said, I was an early Trump supporter because every choice in the last 40 years has been socialist vs socialist lite. There is almost no difference between the two major parties at this point. A Populist on the other hand, is more likely to support more individualist policies than either of them.
From a practical perspective he has been far more effective than I expected given the resistance arrayed against him. From every direction.
People determined to break the laws will do so, no matter how many you pass.
He has managed to get some things done in spite of all of DC plus the media. That is impressive to me.
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?