How do Americans decide on their presidential candidate?

Brief background on myself, I've been a Republican, less often an Independent, in elections the past 30 years Always solidly on the right.

In most presidential elections I examined candidates of Republican and Democratic sides, just to see how they stated their positions.

Personally, I believe in allowing the markets to operate with less regulations.

I considered voting for Clinton in '92, decided to stay at home towards the end. Every other election I voted Republican.

At different times in the campaign processes, I was fortunate to support African-American Republican candidates: Alan Keyes, Herman Cain and Ben Carson.

More about my governmental leanings. I like our constitution and limited government, a safe enforced border and a strong deterrent military that stays out of foreign wars if our interests are not threatened.

There you go, the method of one American conservative. How do you decide?

Less regulations = more pay for ceos and less for workers, more domination by megacorporations and less viability for non-megaliths

more monopolies, more price gouging, and more corporate crime

Even if I DID believe in less regulations (which I don't), in this specific instance I would vote against my political beliefs in order to keep a pathological liar convicted felon & rapist out of the white house.

@awkward-aardvark said in #3:
> Even if I DID believe in less regulations (which I don't), in this specific instance I would vote against my political beliefs in order to keep a pathological liar convicted felon & rapist out of the white house.
His failed, criminal businesses are a great example of why regulations are necessary

@salmon_rushdie said in #4:
> His failed, criminal businesses are a great example of why regulations are necessary
NAW!!! LESS CONTROL OF THE STATE OVER THE ECONOMY!!! MORE CONTROL OF THE STATE ON WOMEN'S BODIES!!!

@salmon_rushdie said in #2:
> Less regulations = more pay for ceos and less for workers, more domination by megacorporations and less viability for non-megaliths
>
> more monopolies, more price gouging, and more corporate crime

I guess this is exactly what Elon is planning. ;-)

#2,

No, exactly the opposite. In every single case, but especially when you claim there are “more monopolies” in an unregulated market. Dude, when government controls an industry, that’s nothing less than the *definition* of a monopoly. :-| To the point where “government monopoly” is almost a tautology.

Government interference prevents competition, which is the natural solution to every problem you listed. Via competition, the market regulates itself — ensuring availability, and that the price-to-quality ratio is decent for everyone — rather than allowing some worthless bureaucrats to parasitize it in their own short-term self interest, by using their position in government to *force* everyone to buy the same one-size-fits-all crap, and actually *punishing* innovation. (I dunno about you, but I’ll take a supermarket over a bread line, any day!) History is my witness that the free-market approach has *always* worked better, everywhere both have been tried.

One poignant example was furnished by Germany in the 1980s, where both methods were tried simultaneously among essentially the same population. West Germany was relatively unregulated, and they fared a whole lot better as a result. Whereas the government controlled basically everything in East Germany, and it became hell on earth before that Wall came down. Ask anyone who lived through it which side had a better price-to-quality ratio, less corruption, etc. It’s the diametrical opposite of your prediction.

So you haven’t just lied here, you’ve told an antitruth. You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.

> How do Americans decide on their presidential candidate?

Very simple : from now on, WE help them choose

I stopped reading at
@pawnedge said in #7:
> Dude, when government controls an industry, that’s nothing less than the *definition* of a monopoly.
The opposite of 'less regulations' is not 'state monopoly'.

@pawnedge said in #7:
> #2,
>
> No, exactly the opposite. In every single case, but especially when you claim there are “more monopolies” in an unregulated market. Dude, when government controls an industry, that’s nothing less than the *definition* of a monopoly. :-| To the point where “government monopoly” is almost a tautology.
>
> Government interference prevents competition, which is the natural solution to every problem you listed. Via competition, the market regulates itself — ensuring availability, and that the price-to-quality ratio is decent for everyone — rather than allowing some worthless bureaucrats to parasitize it in their own short-term self interest, by using their position in government to *force* everyone to buy the same one-size-fits-all crap, and actually *punishing* innovation. (I dunno about you, but I’ll take a supermarket over a bread line, any day!) History is my witness that the free-market approach has *always* worked better, everywhere both have been tried.
>
> One poignant example was furnished by Germany in the 1980s, where both methods were tried simultaneously among essentially the same population. West Germany was relatively unregulated, and they fared a whole lot better as a result. Whereas the government controlled basically everything in East Germany, and it became hell on earth before that Wall came down. Ask anyone who lived through it which side had a better price-to-quality ratio, less corruption, etc. It’s the diametrical opposite of your prediction.
>
> So you haven’t just lied here, you’ve told an antitruth. You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
Command economy =/= regulations

Regulation = if a monopoly forms it is broken up
Non-regulation = no restriction on the domination of a corporation.

So how would this form of regulation lead to more monopolies vs the latter?

Here's another good one

Regulation = restriction of pollutants and ingredients that kill people
non-regulation = no restrictions - lead in gas - higher violence - smog everywhere

You know what happens in non-restricted industry?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

Regulation = no price gouging in the event of emergencies
non-regulation = 10$ bottles of water in event of emergency

You think an unregulated energy sector works?

Look at Texas, they deregulated their energy sector and as such
- has weak ties to the rest of the nations energy infrastructure
- are underinvested in (to maximize profits), and vulnerable to extreme events (due to bad connection with the rest of the country)
- the companies price gouge customers heavily during winter, especially if it snows

No, I don't think -all- regulations are good, there is a balance
But they form the only barrier of protection between consumers/citizens and corporate malignancy