Debate Now The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath

[Foxfyre]

Posters, hand signs, yard signs, bullying, compliments, criticism, slurs, lies, insults, truth, slams, protests, digging up histories, dirty tricks, spin doctors, media distortions, robo calls, jammed e-mail boxes, endless ads on radio and television, optimism, nobility, and so many debates that they all start running together after awhile. . .

Yes it is election time in America once again.

This thread is devoted to anything and everything related to the current election cycle though comparisons to previous elections can be made. Impressions, fears, thoughts, convictions, anger, outrage, approval, who should win, who should be the veep choice, who should be in the cabinet, etc. It is all fair game within the rules for the thread.

Rules for this thread:

1. Zone One rules apply so keep it civil. To refresh your memory:
"Zone 1": . . .Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics."

2. Members must provide a brief summary of what any posted links will say and, as necessary, the OP will rule on what definitions apply for this thread only.

3. Reasonable friendly banter that doesn't derail the thread can be allowed, but otherwise please stay on topic.

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

 

[Militants]

Cruz or Trump I actually want but I vote in Trump.

 

[Foxfyre]

My own impressions so far are a degree of frustration that the media is more interested in what the candidates think about each other than what the candidates think about their own agenda. The media focuses much on the negatives whether candidates commenting on each other or protests or inflammatory statements by public figures than they do on what each candidate has to offer or will likely offer.

I deal with disgust and anger at the dishonesty built into the system. I wish there could be a truth meter strapped to every talking head on television, whoever he or she is, to indicate whether the person is telling the absolute truth as he or she sees it.

I believe the country will be in better hands with one of the Republicans in the White House next year regardless of who it is. I just wish the system would allow me to feel good about that person.

 

[Foxfyre]

Cruz or Trump I actually want but I vote in Trump.

Thanks for your input. Note that you can change your vote in the poll and you can vote for both if you would be happy with either.

 

[Auld Phart]

Question one: Frustrated

the frontrunners this year are the candidates with the HIGHEST distrusted rates.

and NONE of them have the experience to assume the office, with the possible exception of Kasich.

The rest of them are posers, running on their names.

Question two. Not from the slate we have now.

Question three. Honesty, someone that can, and WILL work with both sides of the aisle.

NONE on the horizon

 

[Foxfyre]

Question one: Frustrated

the frontrunners this year are the candidates with the HIGHEST distrusted rates.

and NONE of them have the experience to assume the office, with the possible exception of Kasich.

The rest of them are posers, running on their names.

Question two. Not from the slate we have now.

Question three. Honesty, someone that can, and WILL work with both sides of the aisle.

NONE on the horizon

I think you have a lot of company, and thank you for your candor.

My only problem with those who are so disgusted they won't choose anybody who can win in this election cycle--and again you have a lot of company including many good people--is that you don't oppose those you believe to be the most destructive.

I had to wrestle with my conscience as to whether voting for the best of the worst was viable for a responsible citizen. And I finally came to terms with that. As a responsible citizen who cares about her country, I have to vote for the best option with a chance to win no matter how bad that is.

 

[Auld Phart]

Question one: Frustrated

the frontrunners this year are the candidates with the HIGHEST distrusted rates.

and NONE of them have the experience to assume the office, with the possible exception of Kasich.

The rest of them are posers, running on their names.

Question two. Not from the slate we have now.

Question three. Honesty, someone that can, and WILL work with both sides of the aisle.

NONE on the horizon

I think you have a lot of company, and thank you for your candor.

My only problem with those who are so disgusted they won't choose anybody who can win in this election cycle--and again you have a lot of company including many good people--is that you don't oppose those you believe to be the most destructive.

I had to wrestle with my conscience as to whether voting for the best of the worst was viable for a responsible citizen. And I finally came to terms with that. As a responsible citizen who cares about her country, I have to vote for the best option with a chance to win no matter how bad that is.

As I've stated in other threads, I dont' see a dimes worth of difference between Hillary and Trump.

and Cruz and Rubio are far from them.

Bernie too far out to consider

If the American public had any sense, the top runners would be Kasich and O'Malley.

 

[Foxfyre]

Question one: Frustrated

the frontrunners this year are the candidates with the HIGHEST distrusted rates.

and NONE of them have the experience to assume the office, with the possible exception of Kasich.

The rest of them are posers, running on their names.

Question two. Not from the slate we have now.

Question three. Honesty, someone that can, and WILL work with both sides of the aisle.

NONE on the horizon

I think you have a lot of company, and thank you for your candor.

My only problem with those who are so disgusted they won't choose anybody who can win in this election cycle--and again you have a lot of company including many good people--is that you don't oppose those you believe to be the most destructive.

I had to wrestle with my conscience as to whether voting for the best of the worst was viable for a responsible citizen. And I finally came to terms with that. As a responsible citizen who cares about her country, I have to vote for the best option with a chance to win no matter how bad that is.

As I've stated in other threads, I dont' see a dimes worth of difference between Hillary and Trump.

and Cruz and Rubio are far from them.

Bernie too far out to consider

If the American public had any sense, the top runners would be Kasich and O'Malley.

Interesting.

What do you see Hillary and Trump agreeing on?

I consult this website providing a comprehensive list, with notations, of each candidate's positions on a broad variety of topics.
OnTheIssues.org - Candidates on the Issues

I see that candidate Hillary has not taken a position on many important issues in this election cycle, mostly because the media has not required her to take a position that could be used against her.

The Donald, on the other hand, has at least commented on most--the media requires the GOP candidates to answer every single question whether or not they ask the same question of the Democrats.

But on those areas that both Hillary and the Donald have expressed a position, I don't see much in the way of agreement.

And whether it looks fortunate or unfortunate, O'Malley is out of the race for now, and I don't see much of a path to the nomination for Kasich.

 

[Foxfyre]

I thought it interesting that yesterday, I think, Ted Cruz, with Carly Fiorina sitting beside him, said that there was a tremendous amount of talent included among the 17 original candidates for the GOP nomination. He continued that anybody who didn't try to include those people in his cabinet would be crazy (or something to that effect.)

That put all sorts of possibilities into my head. Cruz was asked if Fiorina was his choice of running mate--a very uncalled for awkward question in my opinion--and an obviously uncomfortable Cruz did not commit and Fiorina jumped in to say, let's get him nominated first and then we'll worry about a running mate.

 

[Militants]

Carly Fiorina haved maybe chance in 2020 election if Democracy win 2016 ....

 

[Foxfyre]

Carly Fiorina haved maybe chance in 2020 election if Democracy win 2016 ....

Maybe. But she wasn't able to generate much support this time after eight years of a disastrous Democratic administration.

 

[320 Years of History]

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

1. Frustrated.
   I find the paucity of in depth proposals and clear remarks transcend the point of being merely annoying for they force me to consider what the speakers, the candidates in this case, may or may not have meant, and in turn looking, even if just cursorily, down multiple avenues to determine, since what they truly meant -- in terms of means and modes of achieving the ends they identify -- isn't clear. While I'm able to do that, I should not be made to "work that hard" to select for whom to cast my vote.
   
   Angry
   I'm angry over the complete ignorance of basic economic principles issuing from the mouths of candidates and their supporters.
   
   Thomas Carlyle, a Scottish writer and philosopher, called economics "the dismal science" in reference to Thomas Malthus, that lugubrious economist who claimed humanity was trapped in a world where population growth would always strain natural resources and bring widespread misery. He labeled the science "dismal" when writing about slavery in the West Indies. White plantation owners, he said, ought to force black plantation workers to be their servants. Economics, somewhat inconveniently for Carlyle, didn't offer a hearty defense of slavery. Instead, the rules of supply and demand argued for "letting men alone" rather than thrashing them with whips for not being servile. Accordingly, Carlyle bashed political economy as "a dreary, desolate, and indeed quite abject and distressing [science]. What he found dismal about economics was that for as much as he wanted to espouse and encourage one mode of behavior, economic principles clearly indicated that what he wanted to propone was at odds with economic efficiency and the ideal allocation of resources. Thus making economics the dismal science.
   
   There's no denying that economics foretells a variety of depressing outcomes -- e.g., globalization killing manufacturing jobs in places where the cost of labor is comparatively expensive -- for individuals, businesses and nations that find themselves in a changing world, a world, and the changes, they themselves wrought. Faced with the economic realities, they resort to what boils down to simple resistance to change, nostalgia. Moreover, they present and frame "the problem" as being the loss or decline of "this or that" rather than as what it truly is: their unwillingness to find means of prospering under the new paradigm they created.
   
   Workers demanded higher wages. Well, they got them, but they did so in a time when it was still more cost effective for employers to pay the higher wage than to assume the risks accompanying distant labor forces. Now "the problem" is that manufacturers have sought lower wage workers, those higher wage workers lost their jobs, refused to move to where the factory did and refused to acquire new skills.
   
   Well, I'm sorry, but the problem is not that companies have offshored their production facilities. The problem, the thing that caused the current state of affairs, is that people and nations took a short term view and failed to consider the full economic impact of what they demanded and received.
   
   "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
   -- Murray N. Rothbard
   
   
2. No, because the person whom I think may be the right person isn't running for the office.
   
   
3. The thing I look for most in a candidate is unwavering integrity and ethical standards. I look for that above all else because while the approach a candidate prefers may not be the one I prefer, if I can trust that they will do (or attempt to) as they promise during their campaign, I can plan my life accordingly, and in so doing, thrive. I judge a person's integrity by the way they communicate. People who dialectically discuss the issues and clearly identify their personal stance on them as well strike me as being of the greatest degree of integrity. Those who do not are of varying lesser degrees of it.
   
   The second thing I look for among candidates for elected office is the extent to which they embrace the principle of noblesse oblige. I prefer candidates who demonstrate that they will push for policies that, although they may be personally disadvantageous to themselves and others who are similarly situated, are what is best for most of the citizenry.
   
   The third thing I seek in a would be elected officials is adherence to a set of principles that are rigorous to apply at all levels of the decision making spectrum. For example, let's say one's principles instruct that we not ban or constrain access to firearms in part (1) because the rights in the Bill of Rights are among those considered inalienable and (2) because they are needed for safety. Well, that principle would dictate that it's the situation, not the gun, that must change for one to abandon that principle. Holding true to that principle, one would not deny anyone, be they a U.S. citizen or not, access to any size of gun or weapon, including a nuclear or other very powerful "gun" because such devices are merely larger and more powerful guns and because an inalienable right is a right all are due regardless of the nation they belong to.
   
   While I may or may not agree with one's principles on that matter, I do expect one to either live by the pros and cons of it, or I expect one to discard it and develop a more robust set principles. People who demonstrate the willingness and ability to do that, in other words, people who show their lack of great hubris, are the people whom I'm willing to elect to public service.
   
   What I fully abhor and eschew is candidates who assert "such and such" is what is best, and fail to present cogently why they've come to that conclusion. The Pontiff, the so-called Vicar of Christ, can do that sort of thing on some matters; my President cannot do it for any.

Explanation of links, in order:

1. Discussion of Carlyle's coining of the phrase "dismal science" in connection with economics.
2. Discussion of the meaning and context of the term noblesse oblige.
3. Discussion of the nature and extent to which Papal statements can and cannot be construed as infallible.

 

[Foxfyre]

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

1. Frustrated.
   I find the paucity of in depth proposals and clear remarks transcend the point of being merely annoying for they force me to consider what the speakers, the candidates in this case, may or may not have meant, and in turn looking, even if just cursorily, down multiple avenues to determine, since what they truly meant -- in terms of means and modes of achieving the ends they identify -- isn't clear. While I'm able to do that, I should not be made to "work that hard" to select for whom to cast my vote.
   
   Angry
   I'm angry over the complete ignorance of basic economic principles issuing from the mouths of candidates and their supporters.
   
   Thomas Carlyle, a Scottish writer and philosopher, called economics "the dismal science" in reference to Thomas Malthus, that lugubrious economist who claimed humanity was trapped in a world where population growth would always strain natural resources and bring widespread misery. He labeled the science "dismal" when writing about slavery in the West Indies. White plantation owners, he said, ought to force black plantation workers to be their servants. Economics, somewhat inconveniently for Carlyle, didn't offer a hearty defense of slavery. Instead, the rules of supply and demand argued for "letting men alone" rather than thrashing them with whips for not being servile. Accordingly, Carlyle bashed political economy as "a dreary, desolate, and indeed quite abject and distressing [science]. What he found dismal about economics was that for as much as he wanted to espouse and encourage one mode of behavior, economic principles clearly indicated that what he wanted to propone was at odds with economic efficiency and the ideal allocation of resources. Thus making economics the dismal science.
   
   There's no denying that economics foretells a variety of depressing outcomes -- e.g., globalization killing manufacturing jobs in places where the cost of labor is comparatively expensive -- for individuals, businesses and nations that find themselves in a changing world, a world, and the changes, they themselves wrought. Faced with the economic realities, they resort to what boils down to simple resistance to change, nostalgia. Moreover, they present and frame "the problem" as being the loss or decline of "this or that" rather than as what it truly is: their unwillingness to find means of prospering under the new paradigm they created.
   
   Workers demanded higher wages. Well, they got them, but they did so in a time when it was still more cost effective for employers to pay the higher wage than to assume the risks accompanying distant labor forces. Now "the problem" is that manufacturers have sought lower wage workers, those higher wage workers lost their jobs, refused to move to where the factory did and refused to acquire new skills.
   
   Well, I'm sorry, but the problem is not that companies have offshored their production facilities. The problem, the thing that caused the current state of affairs, is that people and nations took a short term view and failed to consider the full economic impact of what they demanded and received.
   
   "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
   -- Murray N. Rothbard
   
   
2. No, because the person whom I think may be the right person isn't running for the office.
   
   
3. The thing I look for most in a candidate is unwavering integrity and ethical standards. I look for that above all else because while the approach a candidate prefers may not be the one I prefer, if I can trust that they will do (or attempt to) as they promise during their campaign, I can plan my life accordingly, and in so doing, thrive. I judge a person's integrity by the way they communicate. People who dialectically discuss the issues and clearly identify their personal stance on them as well strike me as being of the greatest degree of integrity. Those who do not are of varying lesser degrees of it.
   
   The second thing I look for among candidates for elected office is the extent to which they embrace the principle of noblesse oblige. I prefer candidates who demonstrate that they will push for policies that, although they may be personally disadvantageous to themselves and others who are similarly situated, are what is best for most of the citizenry.
   
   The third thing I seek in a would be elected officials is adherence to a set of principles that are rigorous to apply at all levels of the decision making spectrum. For example, let's say one's principles instruct that we not ban or constrain access to firearms in part (1) because the rights in the Bill of Rights are among those considered inalienable and (2) because they are needed for safety. Well, that principle would dictate that it's the situation, not the gun, that must change for one to abandon that principle. Holding true to that principle, one would not deny anyone, be they a U.S. citizen or not, access to any size of gun or weapon, including a nuclear or other very powerful "gun" because such devices are merely larger and more powerful guns and because an inalienable right is a right all are due regardless of the nation they belong to.
   
   While I may or may not agree with one's principles on that matter, I do expect one to either live by the pros and cons of it, or I expect one to discard it and develop a more robust set principles. People who demonstrate the willingness and ability to do that, in other words, people who show their lack of great hubris, are the people whom I'm willing to elect to public service.
   
   What I fully abhor and eschew is candidates who assert "such and such" is what is best, and fail to present cogently why they've come to that conclusion. The Pontiff, the so-called Vicar of Christ, can do that sort of thing on some matters; my President cannot do it for any.

Explanation of links, in order:

1. Discussion of Carlyle's coining of the phrase "dismal science" in connection with economics.
2. Discussion of the meaning and context of the term noblesse oblige.
3. Discussion of the nature and extent to which Papal statements can and cannot be construed as infallible.

Thank you for the time, effort, and thought that went into this post though I would guess only a fraction of even our most highly educated USMB members will probably read the whole thing as it sometimes take too much time to decipher the more detailed posts.

Condensing it all down for me, I agree that no candidate will meet all the personal wishes and standards for anybody. The best we can do is choose the one who is most closely aligned with our values and beliefs about what is the right thing to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was reading one analysis that suggested that one reason Trump is so effective on the campaign stump is that he doesn't talk down to his audience but rather he talks TO his audience in the language that his audience most commonly uses, even the most educated among the group. He speaks in mostly in one or two syllable words with more syllables used only when there is no shorter word to use to say it. That is the way most of us communicate in our everyday conversations.

He doesn't speak in pedantic academic style as some do--think Ben Carson at some times. He doesn't speak in political platitudes--think Ted Cruz. He doesn't sound like he is rehearsed and scripted--think Marco Rubio. He doesn't focus on past history in his stated resume--think John Kasich. He speaks mostly in the here and now, what is wrong that needs to change, and what needs to happen in language people can instantly understand and easily remember without thinking about it. He speaks what his audience is thinking and what they are hungry to hear. He is an absolutely master communicator despite his politically incorrect, sometimes disjointed, random, extemporaneous style.

Does that mean he is the best choice to be President? Not at all. But if he is elected, that is why he will be elected. Fortunately, if he is the candidate, he has a proven track record that makes him the obvious choice over Hillary or Bernie.

 

[320 Years of History]

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

1. Frustrated.
   I find the paucity of in depth proposals and clear remarks transcend the point of being merely annoying for they force me to consider what the speakers, the candidates in this case, may or may not have meant, and in turn looking, even if just cursorily, down multiple avenues to determine, since what they truly meant -- in terms of means and modes of achieving the ends they identify -- isn't clear. While I'm able to do that, I should not be made to "work that hard" to select for whom to cast my vote.
   
   Angry
   I'm angry over the complete ignorance of basic economic principles issuing from the mouths of candidates and their supporters.
   
   Thomas Carlyle, a Scottish writer and philosopher, called economics "the dismal science" in reference to Thomas Malthus, that lugubrious economist who claimed humanity was trapped in a world where population growth would always strain natural resources and bring widespread misery. He labeled the science "dismal" when writing about slavery in the West Indies. White plantation owners, he said, ought to force black plantation workers to be their servants. Economics, somewhat inconveniently for Carlyle, didn't offer a hearty defense of slavery. Instead, the rules of supply and demand argued for "letting men alone" rather than thrashing them with whips for not being servile. Accordingly, Carlyle bashed political economy as "a dreary, desolate, and indeed quite abject and distressing [science]. What he found dismal about economics was that for as much as he wanted to espouse and encourage one mode of behavior, economic principles clearly indicated that what he wanted to propone was at odds with economic efficiency and the ideal allocation of resources. Thus making economics the dismal science.
   
   There's no denying that economics foretells a variety of depressing outcomes -- e.g., globalization killing manufacturing jobs in places where the cost of labor is comparatively expensive -- for individuals, businesses and nations that find themselves in a changing world, a world, and the changes, they themselves wrought. Faced with the economic realities, they resort to what boils down to simple resistance to change, nostalgia. Moreover, they present and frame "the problem" as being the loss or decline of "this or that" rather than as what it truly is: their unwillingness to find means of prospering under the new paradigm they created.
   
   Workers demanded higher wages. Well, they got them, but they did so in a time when it was still more cost effective for employers to pay the higher wage than to assume the risks accompanying distant labor forces. Now "the problem" is that manufacturers have sought lower wage workers, those higher wage workers lost their jobs, refused to move to where the factory did and refused to acquire new skills.
   
   Well, I'm sorry, but the problem is not that companies have offshored their production facilities. The problem, the thing that caused the current state of affairs, is that people and nations took a short term view and failed to consider the full economic impact of what they demanded and received.
   
   "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
   -- Murray N. Rothbard
   
   
2. No, because the person whom I think may be the right person isn't running for the office.
   
   
3. The thing I look for most in a candidate is unwavering integrity and ethical standards. I look for that above all else because while the approach a candidate prefers may not be the one I prefer, if I can trust that they will do (or attempt to) as they promise during their campaign, I can plan my life accordingly, and in so doing, thrive. I judge a person's integrity by the way they communicate. People who dialectically discuss the issues and clearly identify their personal stance on them as well strike me as being of the greatest degree of integrity. Those who do not are of varying lesser degrees of it.
   
   The second thing I look for among candidates for elected office is the extent to which they embrace the principle of noblesse oblige. I prefer candidates who demonstrate that they will push for policies that, although they may be personally disadvantageous to themselves and others who are similarly situated, are what is best for most of the citizenry.
   
   The third thing I seek in a would be elected officials is adherence to a set of principles that are rigorous to apply at all levels of the decision making spectrum. For example, let's say one's principles instruct that we not ban or constrain access to firearms in part (1) because the rights in the Bill of Rights are among those considered inalienable and (2) because they are needed for safety. Well, that principle would dictate that it's the situation, not the gun, that must change for one to abandon that principle. Holding true to that principle, one would not deny anyone, be they a U.S. citizen or not, access to any size of gun or weapon, including a nuclear or other very powerful "gun" because such devices are merely larger and more powerful guns and because an inalienable right is a right all are due regardless of the nation they belong to.
   
   While I may or may not agree with one's principles on that matter, I do expect one to either live by the pros and cons of it, or I expect one to discard it and develop a more robust set principles. People who demonstrate the willingness and ability to do that, in other words, people who show their lack of great hubris, are the people whom I'm willing to elect to public service.
   
   What I fully abhor and eschew is candidates who assert "such and such" is what is best, and fail to present cogently why they've come to that conclusion. The Pontiff, the so-called Vicar of Christ, can do that sort of thing on some matters; my President cannot do it for any.

Explanation of links, in order:

1. Discussion of Carlyle's coining of the phrase "dismal science" in connection with economics.
2. Discussion of the meaning and context of the term noblesse oblige.
3. Discussion of the nature and extent to which Papal statements can and cannot be construed as infallible.

Thank you for the time, effort, and thought that went into this post though I would guess only a fraction of even our most highly educated USMB members will probably read the whole thing as it sometimes take too much time to decipher the more detailed posts.

Condensing it all down for me, I agree that no candidate will meet all the personal wishes and standards for anybody. The best we can do is choose the one who is most closely aligned with our values and beliefs about what is the right thing to do.

Red:
Perhaps I've too closely read your statement, and if so, what I'm about to write may not be applicable.

Truly, I'm less concerned with what a (would be) policymaker thinks is the right thing to do than I am with how s/he goes about presenting it to me/us. Clearly there are some things that can be boiled down to being objectively right or wrong, but I don't find that most public policy matters fall into that category. Similarly, there are multiple "ways to skin a cat." Some get the job done faster, others more slowly, but all potentially viable approaches have their pros and cons.

Regardless of a Presidential aspirant's means, I doubt any of them have foul intentions in mind, ditto for the ends they seek. I grant even that much benefit of the doubt to the ones whom I least prefer.

Pink:
"Dismay" was not among the emotions about which you asked in question #1, but it's definitely what I feel about nature and content of American political discourse as we see it today. Largely, I believe the cause is what I refer to as the "twitterization" of discourse in general, that is, the general public's demand for, on nearly all occasions, sound bites and/or slogans over comprehensive expression.

With all the personal efficiency boosters and nearly limitless access to information we have today and that our forebears lacked, I am befuddled why the substance and content of political debate is at the very least no better than it was in the preceding centuries. Moreover, I have to ask, "If a sound bite, slogan or tweet is sufficient, why on Earth do we bother with paying for as much public education as we do?"

The typical eighth grader can make sense of the content of a tweet, and effectively no level of education is needed if one is willing to unquestioningly accept the word of a political party on what be the best, okay and worst ends and means to seek/apply. Yet, as a polity, we allow our candidates to deliver their messages in bits and bites akin in content to the messages we teach our children.

The tweets and slogans political office aspirants give us have more in common with the instructions and pronouncements we make to our kids than they do with cogently presented persuasive arguments. One may instruct one's child not to talk to strangers or not accept things from strangers. As adults we have learned enough to know when it's reasonably safe, or desirable, to talk to strangers. Even as no minor may vote, politicians communicate with the electorate as though children we be.

While I find that insulting, I have to assume that they do so for good reason. The only plausible reason - the only one devoid of affrontery -- is because the electorate truly is juvenile in its willingness and actual handling of complex matters. That that is the only plausible reason for their approach to delivering political messages is, in some ways, even more disheartening than is the puerility of the messages and delivery itself.

Blue:
You're welcome.

 

[Militants]

Cruz now. I change me. I trust in Trump if he won against Clinton / Sanders.

 

[Militants]

I say Cruz win against Sanders only or Clinton sure ????

 

[Foxfyre]

I checked Cruz, Trump, and Kasich on the poll choices as any of the three I think would be vastly superior to Clinton or Sanders. So would Rubio but I don't see Rubio as a viable candidate any more. When he allowed Trump to dictate how he would run his campaign, with very poor results I might add, I had to agree with those who say the kid has potential, but he's not ready.

 

[Militants]

I checked Cruz, Trump, and Kasich on the poll choices as any of the three I think would be vastly superior to Clinton or Sanders.

Great stuff.

When he allowed Trump to dictate how he would run his campaign, with very poor results I might add, I had to agree with those who say the kid has potential, but he's not ready.

Trump are ready for winner the election.

 

[320 Years of History]

I checked Cruz, Trump, and Kasich on the poll choices as any of the three I think would be vastly superior to Clinton or Sanders. So would Rubio but I don't see Rubio as a viable candidate any more. When he allowed Trump to dictate how he would run his campaign, with very poor results I might add, I had to agree with those who say the kid has potential, but he's not ready.

Interesting....on the dimension I most value, integrity, I place Mr. Sanders ahead of the rest by a large margin. For example, in the news interviews of the candidates and/or the candidates' key campaign personnel I watches yesterday (all on the same network), only Mr. Sanders provided direct replies to the questions they were all asked. Without exception, the rest of them responded to the question by

1. attacking another candidate (or their supporters) or at least identifying something they perceived as being wrong with someone else's campaign or supporters, (2)
2. identifying something they aim to do that had nothing to do with the question they were asked,
3. comparing/contrasting their ideas and actions (or those of their supporters) with those of another candidate, but still not answering the question asked, or
4. offering what I call the "lemming defense:" others have done X, so I can too.

That last option strikes me as the most pathetic. Who among us has not said to our kids, "If the rest of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do that too? What others do has nothing to do with what you do or should do."?

Mr. Sanders, on the other hand, answered the question directly and then explained the reasons for his answer. There is no better way to respond to inquiries. I truly don't understand why anyone willingly abides permitting candidates to provide a less clear and candid response and, given such blurry replies, acquiesces to voting for them with the aim of and knowledge that doing so entrusts a prevaricator to be one's President.