Rand Paul's ACA Replacement

[Michael Wolf]

If you like Paul for campaigning against pointless and costly wars, you've got to appreciate Trump for that too. Trump went to South Carolina, one of the most hawkish states, and flat-out called the Iraq War a mistake and a disaster -- while George W. Bush, who was still popular in SC, was in the state campaigning for his brother Jeb. Paul and Trump were both right on this issue, but only Trump could walk into the lion's den like that and knock off a political dynasty.

Trump has said things along non-interventionist (not isolationist, which is how neo-cons and hawkish dems like to smear) lines that I like. I hope he follows through on them. Rip is more optimistic on Trump than I am.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I am optimistic about the structure he is putting in place, the guys he's hired, and the overall emphasis on getting shit done. As I said before, the man himself is an undisciplined child in many ways. If this is the personality it takes to clean up the mess, we can deal with that.

[nykid]

This is unfortunate, but true. Rand Paul was my ideal policy guy, but for reasons that are petty, superficial, and nonetheless significant, he wasn't electable in the primary system.

Rand Paul was the only guy in the Republican primary I could stomach. I liked his dad, too.

[Mark Rippetoe]

But you could stomach Mrs. Clinton or the Sanders buffoon? There is an enormous gulf here, never to be crossed.

[nykid]

But you could stomach Mrs. Clinton or the Sanders buffoon? There is an enormous gulf here, never to be crossed.

Mrs. Clinton was a tool of the status quo. As much as I didn't like her personally, I was okay with her maintaining that status quo for another 4 or 8 years, given the opposition. Because I don't think Trump will change the status quo in any meaningful way either. But he might do some other really stupid things (that Clinton would not have). Like a 20% tariff on all Mexican imports.

[ForbiddenDonut]

Couple interesting articles on this subject, and a proposal by Rand himself:

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231780

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231786

[Jarret Noll]

Mrs. Clinton was a tool of the status quo. As much as I didn't like her personally, I was okay with her maintaining that status quo for another 4 or 8 years, given the opposition.

The "status quo" would have been dramatically altered, not maintained, if HRC had been granted the opportunity to appoint one more more justices to the Supreme Court. I can't say for sure what kind of judge trump will appoint but we all know what kind of judge HRC would've appointed. We were on the precipice of a "brave new world" and if trumps greatest accomplishment is defeating HRC and keeping her out of the white house he will still have done enough to satisfy me.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Mrs. Clinton was a tool of the status quo. As much as I didn't like her personally, I was okay with her maintaining that status quo for another 4 or 8 years, given the opposition.

Mrs. Clinton was a tool of foreign governments, or anybody else who would pay. The status quo economy has been below 3% GDP growth for the past 10 years. I assume you're not self-employed, or you would not be okay with that either.

Because I don't think Trump will change the status quo in any meaningful way either.

He already has. You have not been paying attention to anything but MSNBC.

But he might do some other really stupid things (that Clinton would not have). Like a 20% tariff on all Mexican imports.

There will not be a 20% tariff on Mexican imports. You don't understand how the man works. I'd love to buy a car from you, but I'd prefer that you not sell my car for me.

[George Christiansen]

Like a 20% tariff on all Mexican imports.

People whining about this have clearly never negotiated anything in their lives. Sticker price is irrelevant outside of chain stores.

The BIGGEST source of income for Mexico is moneies sent back from the US. It has been nothing short of being in the pocket of special interests and the lack of testicular fortitude that has not somehow leveraged this to the benefit of the United States.

So Trump is the benchmark for personal/political skills? Trump only won because of Hillary, it was a random confluence of events that probably won't occur again, there's a reason virtually no one predicted him winning to begin with.

I have every different ideals for personal/political skills, but the fact that he beat over a dozen Republicans and Hillary says that he had the best of both of those measured by what it takes to actually win. Blame this on the stupidity of his supporters or whatever, but he was the only sane one in the group by the very definition of the word. He behaved in a way that actually brought the results that were possible in the current reality.

It is totally legitimate to bemoan the facts of the current realities, but it is insane to act as if you can somehow expect results by living as if reality was what you wished it was rather than what it actually is...which is what every other Republican that ran did.

Some will argue that Trump could not help himself, but had to carry himself the way he did and that his personality just so happened to coincide with what was actually necessary to win against that cheating bitch and the plethora of Republican wanna be that ran against him, but if you watch him in past interviews and even the not so subtle changes in his language and demeanor since winning, it is pretty clear to me that he thought (correctly) that it was going to take trolling to win and therefore he learned to be a troll.

[perman]

Some will argue that Trump could not help himself, but had to carry himself the way he did and that his personality just so happened to coincide with what was actually necessary to win against that cheating bitch and the plethora of Republican wanna be that ran against him, but if you watch him in past interviews and even the not so subtle changes in his language and demeanor since winning, it is pretty clear to me that he thought (correctly) that it was going to take trolling to win and therefore he learned to be a troll.

I think it's both, I mean there is definitely a deliberate element to Trump's trolling, but what he chooses to focus on on Twitter and in comments like how others are losers, he's winning, he had the biggest crowd, his hands are big, SNL is so unfunny no one should watch it (even though he apparently seems to watch it consistently from his tweets) clearly demonstrates that he can't really help himself.

Also, the word is he was busy seeking donors to begin with, but while he was failing to get donors, someone apparently mentioned he should be running as the candidate not beholden to Big money, so he did that, and he was gonna drain the swamp, and now instead people like Rex Tillerson may get to dictate foreign policy towards Russia for corporate reasons. It was obviously bullshit, like almost everything is with him.

I refuse to acknowledge any significance competency in that man, he has either stumbled into the correct strategy or benefited from others' incompetence. That man is not some clever politician, he's a reflection of how poorly the public and the system chooses it's leaders...